Green Spaces over a Roof or on the Ground, Does It Matter? The Perception of Ecosystem Services and Potential Restorative Effects
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors investigated the role of different types of urban green space on the city. The investigation is of some value, but the paper has many drawbacks and issues which require the authors' attention.
1. Please read and check the manuscript carefully before submission. There are some obvious errors in the article.
2.There are differences between the abstract part and the introduction part, please check carefully.
3. The logic of the introduction needs to be strengthened.
4. There are problems with the image serial number in the article, and the clarity needs to be improved. Please carefully check and improve the picture clarity.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1
The authors investigated the role of different types of urban green space on the city. The investigation is of some value, but the paper has many drawbacks and issues which require the authors' attention.
- Please read and check the manuscript carefully before submission. There are some obvious errors in the article.
We gratefully thank the reviewer for his/her referee work. We have addressed these issues/errors along the manuscript and improved the article as requested.
2.There are differences between the abstract part and the introduction part, please check carefully.
We have revised the introduction and the abstract to obtain a more coherent text. Please find these changes in the revised manuscript.
- The logic of the introduction needs to be strengthened.
We have revised the introduction section as per the reviewer comments. Please find these changes in the revised manuscript.
- There are problems with the image serial number in the article, and the clarity needs to be improved. Please carefully check and improve the picture clarity.
We have checked the numbering of all images and improved the images quality.
Reviewer 2 Report
Good luck!
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
1. The paper is interesting, uses robust research methods and has the potential to
improve the state of research in the field.
However, there are many aspects that need to be improved for the paper to be
coherent and understandable:
2. The abstract should include 1) Background: Place the question addressed in a
broad context and highlight the purpose of the study; 2) Methods: Describe briefly
the main methods or treatments applied. Include any relevant preregistration
numbers, and species and strains of any animals used. 3) Results: Summarize the
article's main findings; and 4) Conclusion: Indicate the main conclusions or
interpretations. The abstract should have at most 200 words.
3. The structure of the paper must be improved:
a. Introduction,
b. (Literature review),
c. Materials and methods (not Methodology),
d. Results, Discussion and
e. Conclusion
3. Most of the phrases in the Introduction section are not fully comprehensible, they must
be re-formulated to be clear. For example the phrases between lines:
- 59-62
- 64-66
- 71-77
- 81-82
- 85-87
-110-113
- 117-120
4. Please avoid repetitions of the same word in a phrase: lines 72-77 (applied) 117-120
(while)
5. include the reference – lines 102-104, which document from UN?
6. explain the acronyms: ES and ESS
7. Differentiate between the 2 research questions with a) and b) for example
8. Chapter 3. does not include sufficient discussion based on the results obtained, in
comparison with other studies, research results etc.
9. Section 3.1. includes a figure, which is duplicated later on the page as Figure 1 and in
page 14. Figure 1 is also the Survey structure in the Methodology section. Figure 3 is
missing an dis not referred in the text.
2
10. Lines 303-306 – constitutes the Limitation of the study, should be included in
Conclusion section
11. Lines 311-314, the brackets content is here on purpose?
12. Please include a brief description of Anova in the section Materials and methods
13. Lines 348-349 and later on, referrs to images i, ii and iii. Figure 2 is noting I, II and III.
Please correlate the notation.
14. Please refer in the text and comment Figure 5
15. In section 3.2. Access preference it is mentioned a second complementary qualitative
study. Please explain the linkage between the studies.
16. Respond to the research question.
17. use MDPI reference system
18. All paragraphs must be linked, connected and flow smoothly, contributing to the clear
understanding of the paper
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
1. Abstract; a concise description of the adapted methodology should be provided in the abstract. Quantitative results can better reflect the findings of this research. Normally, an abstract is one paragraph.
2. Introduction; low coherency and consistency. The authors should clearly outline the previous gaps and the objectives in line with other research.
3. Figure 2; what are the characteristics of the simulated building and landscape (functionality, stairs, plan areas, buildup area, expected population density, etc.)? It would be more informative if the roof plan and landscape map can be provided.
4. Page 7; they are two tables with Table 1 title. They can be combined indeed. The abbreviations need to be clarified in the text.
5. Section 2.3; it would have been more interesting if the experts’ opinions along with the students’ opinions were evaluated.
6. Results and discussion; most importantly, the findings of each section (I to IV) of this research should be compared with other research in detail. In addition, it was hard for me to come to a conclusion after reading this section.
7. Page 8; duplicate figure. The figures’ captions should be revised. What do the abbreviations mean (NoVeg 3, Trees III, etc.)? The authors should clarify the results in the text.
8. Tables 3 and 4; what are the headers for the second columns? (Vegetation* Access, Vegetation* Roof)? The significant findings should be discussed in the text.
9. Page 14; the first figure is the same as the figure on page 8.
10. Where is Table 6?
11. The Conclusion section should be revised. First, the main objective(s) of the research should be provided. Then, a very brief summary of the results and discussion emphasizing on the implications and significance should be mentioned. It is unnormal to mention references in the Conclusion Section. Rather, the references can be provided in support of the findings in the Results and Discussion Section.
12. It would be useful if the questionnaire be provided in the appendix.
13. There are several editorial mistakes and typos in the manuscript. The sentences need to be improved by a native English editor.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3
We gratefully thank the reviewer for his/her referee work.
- Abstract; a concise description of the adapted methodology should be provided in the abstract. Quantitative results can better reflect the findings of this research. Normally, an abstract is one paragraph.
We have revised the abstract to include the adapted methodology as follows: “This work presents the analysis of an image-based online survey performed to 376 Portuguese undergraduate students from different universities in a classroom environment between March and April 2021. This survey is based on 9 alternative urban space designs for the same location varying on their roof access type (elevated roof, street-level roof or no-roof) and vegetation types (no vegetation; grasses and shrubs; or grasses, shrubs and trees). The survey results were analyzed and validated through statistical analysis.”
All the results obtained along this study are quantitative and were subject to validation through a statistical analysis. These analyses are better identified in the Results and Discussion section.
We have now changed the abstract layout and present it in one paragraph.
- Introduction; low coherency and consistency. The authors should clearly outline the previous gaps and the objectives in line with other research.
We have improved the introduction to better clarify what are the gaps in previous research and the main goals of this research. Please find these changes in the revised manuscript.
- Figure 2; what are the characteristics of the simulated building and landscape (functionality, stairs, plan areas, buildup area, expected population density, etc.)? It would be more informative if the roof plan and landscape map can be provided.
We agree with the reviewer although the presented urban space designs reflect a simulated environment and not in an existing urban setting. The suggested characteristics, the roof plan and landscape map were not presented to the respondents, therefore these suggestions could be relevant for further studies in existing urban settings.
We have added the reviewer recommendations in section 4 as follows: “Further studies on urban settings could analyze other characteristics of urban green spaces, such as their different functionalities, accesses, dimension or expected population density. Also, in site specific interventions the roof plan and landscape map could be presented to the respondents for further analysis on the scale and vegetation included in urban green spaces.”
- Page 7; they are two tables with Table 1 title. They can be combined indeed. The abbreviations need to be clarified in the text.
There was a mistake in the table numbering which is now corrected in the manuscript. The simulation combinations described in Table 1 were further described in section 2.2 as follows: “Nine iterations of the same survey were created using three different urban simulations each (Table 1). Each iteration of the survey included three simulations with different vegetation types (e.i. A1i, B2ii, C3iii, iiiB1, iC2, iiA3, 1iiC, 2iiiA, 3iB).”.
- Section 2.3; it would have been more interesting if the experts’ opinions along with the students’ opinions were evaluated.
We removed section 2.3 and included it in the first subsection of Results and Discussion. The new subsection 3.1 Sample Characteristics was created to include the results and discussion of Section IV of the survey which included the sociodemographic characteristics and urban green spaces frequency of use.
- Results and discussion; most importantly, the findings of each section (I to IV) of this research should be compared with other research in detail. In addition, it was hard for me to come to a conclusion after reading this section.
The results and discussion section was improved to refer where were analyzed the results of each section of the survey (I to IV). The main conclusions of this research are also compared with other research findings.
- Page 8; duplicate figure. The figures’ captions should be revised. What do the abbreviations mean (NoVeg 3, Trees III, etc.)? The authors should clarify the results in the text.
The duplicated figure in page 8 was removed and the figures captions were revised along with the manuscript. The abbreviations meaning is now added to the beginning of section 3 as follows: “The results obtained from each simulation are further described along this section according to the vegetation types (No vegetation, Shrubs and Trees) combined with the roof type (elevated roof, street level roof and no roof). To simplify the naming of each simulation presented in Figure 2 these are further described as follows: NoVeg 1, no vegetation elevated roof; NoVeg 2, no vegetation street level roof; NoVeg 3, no vegetation and no roof underneath; Shrubs A, grasses and shrubs elevated roof; Shrubs B, grasses and shrubs street level roof; Shrubs C, grasses and shrubs and no roof underneath; Trees I, grasses, shrubs and trees elevated roof; Trees II, grasses, shrubs and trees street level roof; Trees III, grasses, shrubs and trees with no roof underneath.”
8. Tables 3 and 4; what are the headers for the second columns? (Vegetation* Access, Vegetation* Roof)? The significant findings should be discussed in the text.
The headers for the first and second columns were added, both in Table 3 and Table 4. The second columns represent the variables analyzed and the combination of the 2. The names of each variable were better clarified in each Table. The findings obtained from these tables were discussed along both sections of the manuscript.
9. Page 14; the first figure is the same as the figure on page 8.
This figure was misplaced in Page 14. The figures order and numbering were corrected in the manuscript.
10. Where is Table 6?
We identified a mistake in the tables numbering after number 5. This was correct in the manuscript.
- The Conclusion section should be revised. First, the main objective(s) of the research should be provided. Then, a very brief summary of the results and discussion emphasizing on the implications and significance should be mentioned. It is unnormal to mention references in the Conclusion Section. Rather, the references can be provided in support of the findings in the Results and Discussion Section.
The Conclusions section was revised according to the reviewer comments. At the beginning of this section were included the main objectives of this research and a brief summary of the results and discussion. The importance of this study was also emphasized along the conclusions.
- It would be useful if the questionnaire be provided in the appendix.
The questionnaire was written in Portuguese and its translation could be misleading. In section 2.1 of the manuscript is provided a description of each section of the questionnaire. Also, in Figure 1 is described the questionnaire structure and the subject of each section.
- There are several editorial mistakes and typos in the manuscript. The sentences need to be improved by a native English editor.
All typos and mistakes were corrected. The document was revised entirely by an English native editor.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
After careful revision by the authors,the article is much better than the original manuscript. I have two more comments:
1. The section of abstract needs to be more concise.
2. Whether the errors in Figures 4, 6 and 8 correspond to the actual simulation results. From the figure, it seems that all the errors are consistent.
Author Response
After careful revision by the authors,the article is much better than the original manuscript. I have two more comments:
- The section of abstract needs to be more concise.
Thank you for your input. We have reviewed the Abstract as suggested.
- Whether the errors in Figures 4, 6 and 8 correspond to the actual simulation results. From the figure, it seems that all the errors are consistent.
Yes, they do, they are consistent.
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have covered most of the issues raised in the review, however there are a few aspects that have not been addressed:
a. Materials and methods (not Methodology),
b. page 11 formatting
c. Please include a brief description of Anova in the section Materials and methods
d. use MDPI reference system
Author Response
The authors have covered most of the issues raised in the review, however there are a few aspects that have not been addressed:
- Materials and methods (not Methodology),
Done accordingly.
- page 11 formatting
Thank you for noticing. Corrected accordingly.
- Please include a brief description of Anova in the section Materials and methods
Done accordingly.
- use MDPI reference system
Done accordingly.
Reviewer 3 Report
The majority of the comments have been well addressed. However, the English language still can be improved.
Author Response
The majority of the comments have been well addressed. However, the English language still can be improved.
Thank you for your input. The whole document was reviewed by an English native speaker.
