Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Author Response

Thank you for your feedback on my article. Your comments have greatly contributed to the improvement of the quality of my writing. Based on your suggestions, I have made the following modifications:

1）I have made modifications to the abstract, providing quantitative conclusions and supplementing an introductory overview of the background and research significance.

2）I have corrected issues in the article titles to ensure accuracy.

3）Considering the potential impact of the pandemic on survey results, and recognizing the limitations of the previous survey in terms of content and methodology, I conducted a new satisfaction survey questionnaire between June 1 and September 1, 2023. By this time, the pandemic in China had essentially ended, and residents' behaviors were no longer restricted, reducing the impact on the satisfaction survey regarding green resources. Additionally, I conducted Common Method Bias Tests and reliability checks on the survey results to ensure accuracy. In-depth interviews were also conducted with both indigenous and new residents, addressing the impact of the pandemic on their use of Julong Lake Park. Indigenous respondents mentioned restricted work and reduced income due to the pandemic, making them busy with livelihoods and less involved in activities at Julong Lake. New residents also noted a decrease in the frequency of using Julong Lake due to the pandemic, and these results were incorporated into the summary of in-depth resident interviews. Furthermore, this study focuses more on the relationship between indigenous and new residents, emphasizing the impact of green gentrification on their relationship.

4）I have rephrased "Analysis of Green Gentrification Calculation Results" into a complete sentence.

5）I have revised the format and content of Table 2 to enhance readability.

6）The structure of the article has been adjusted, with interviews originally in the conclusion section being separated, making the overall structure more logical and rigorous.

7）Regarding the mechanism section, I have reannotated references to ensure a more rigorous and evidence-based summary and discussion of the mechanisms and effects in the article.

8）I have singled out the shortcomings of the study in the discussion section. In the conclusion section, by analyzing the data from the satisfaction survey and referencing previous research, the study's conclusions are drawn to be clearer and more reliable.

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article in its current form seems clearer and more precise in terms of the research problem, methodology and results.

It is preferable to include the research problem in two sentences within the abstract. In this case, I don't think there is any objection to publishing it.

Author Response

Thank you for your feedback on my article. Your comments have greatly contributed to the improvement of the quality of my writing. Based on your suggestions, I have made the following modifications:I have made modifications to the abstract, providing quantitative conclusions and supplementing an introductory overview of the background and research significance.

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General Comments:

I think this revised manuscript is much clearer than the previous submitted versions by providing more details of the study as well as adding necessary clarifications. The authors have taken their effort to addressed reviewers’ comments and re-organized the paper. Nevertheless, my opinion that it still needs a better writing framework, in particular, the logical relationships between Introduction, Literature Review, Identification of Research Gap/Research Problem, Theoretical Framework, etc.

Specific Comments:

1) The writing of abstract seems “unusual”, and it must be improved in terms of logic.

2) By reading the manuscript, I suggest dividing Section 1.1 and Section 1.2 as two different sections - The current Section 1.1 could be treated as the Intro of the study, rather than “Research Background”, while the current Section 1.2 could be treated as the theoretical framework or theoretical basis of the study.

3) The sub-section 2.2.1 “Problem Formulation” should not appear in the methodology section if it is not directly related to the selected case/investigating site. Obviously, this sub-section is a description of the research problem of the paper, which, I suggest moving it to former places, e.g., the Introduction section.

4) Beyond the texts, I suggest using a diagram to clearly show the logic and procedure of the research design.

5) Appendix A is not readable. The presentation form needs to be adjusted.

Author Response

Thank you for your feedback on my article. Your comments have greatly contributed to the improvement of the quality of my writing. Based on your suggestions, I have made the following modifications:

1) I revised the abstract by adding information about the research background, content, and concluding with the results of the satisfaction survey. I also highlighted the positive impact of this study on the formulation of urban green policies and the allocation of green resources. The overall logic and structure of the abstract have been enhanced for clarity.

2) Following your advice, I changed Section 1.1 to the introduction of the article and Section 1.2 to the theoretical foundation research section, making the overall structure of the article more robust.

3) I transferred the "Problem Statement" from the conclusion of Section 2.2.1 to the introduction, serving as a foundation for the subsequent content and improving the logical flow of the article.

4) In accordance with your suggestions, I incorporated charts and graphs in the article to visually represent the logical framework of the research design.

5) I adjusted and modified the format of the questionnaire in Appendix A.

I appreciate your insightful comments and am grateful for your guidance in refining my work.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The result of the author's revision is not satisfactory. The structure of the paper is still chaotic, some problems can not find corresponding revision parts, and the supplementary discussion is put after the conclusion, which is not in line with the writing standards of academic papers.
2. The naming of subheadings in this paper is unreasonable, for example, "3 Research Scope Selection, Research Methods", and "Data Sources", which is part of the research methods.
3. The discussion part did not supplement enough quantitative comparative analysis, nor did it make horizontal comparison with relevant foreign studies, which greatly reduced the generalization and universality of the paper.
4. In response to the previous question (8), the current conclusion is too redundant, more like the result part, and fails to extract the important conclusions of this study.
5. The previous question (6) has not been solved. For example, sections such as "4.2.1 Common Method Bias Test" and "4.2.2 Reliability (Consistency) Test" are inappropriate in the results section.
6. The research significance and innovation of this paper are also insufficient, and I still think that the paper has not reached the level of publication.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

No

Author Response

Thank you very much for your professional evaluation of our article. Your insights have been tremendously helpful in enhancing the paper. Based on your feedback, I made extensive revisions to my paper:

 

1) I rearranged the content of the discussion section, moving it ahead of the conclusion. This allowed for an analysis of the shortcomings of this research and highlighted the future trends of eco-gentrification, resulting in a more coherent logical flow in the article.

 

2) I adjusted the subheadings of the paper, modifying "3 Research Scope Selection, Research Methods, Data Sources" to simply "Research Methods," creating more logical subheadings.

 

3) I supplemented the discussion section with additional quantitative analysis, comparing it horizontally with relevant domestic and international studies. This comparison highlighted the uniqueness of this study, identified its shortcomings compared to others, and outlined the research prospects for future eco-gentrification.

 

4) I made deletions and modifications to the results section, condensing and refining the conclusions to make them more precise.

 

5) I restructured the article, moving sections like "4.2.1 Common Method Bias Test" and "4.2.2 Reliability (Consistency) Test" to the research methods section.

 

6）Concerning the innovative aspects of the paper: Firstly, the article employed a satisfaction survey that hadn't been used in previous studies to test contradictions between indigenous and new residents, and through this survey design, explored previously overlooked aspects such as the differences between indigenous and new residents and their attitudes toward green resources. Furthermore, previous research on eco-gentrification in China primarily focused on the transformation of parks in old urban areas in major cities, neglecting the study of class changes after the addition of green infrastructure in new urban areas in medium and small cities. This study addressed this gap in the literature.

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I think this revised manuscript has been improved by appropriately addressed the reviewers’ comments. Suggestions for minor adjust:

1) Some of the texts in Figure 5 are not readable, and the size of those invisible Fonts can be larger.

2) It is weird that the last section is “Discussion”, but actually you did not “discussed” yet, instead, only listing a few points for reflections. Thus, I suggest combining it into the section of “Conclusion”.

3) Article type: This is Not a “review article”.

I have no further comments.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your professional evaluation of our article. Your insights have been tremendously helpful in enhancing the paper. Based on your feedback, I made extensive revisions to my paper：

1) I have modified Figure 5 to make the text inside clear and readable.

2) I have further adjusted the structure of the article by moving the discussion section to the beginning of the conclusion. In the discussion section, I have supplemented quantitative analysis, compared it horizontally with relevant domestic and international studies, highlighted the uniqueness of this study, identified its shortcomings compared to other research, and explored the research prospects for greening the future. These modifications make the structure of the article more rational.

3）I have changed the type of the article.

 

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The changes in the paper are not highlighted, and I cannot find the changes in " sustainability-2701497-peer-review-v3". For example, the changes in questions (3), (4) and (5) are not marked and cannot be found. The revision results of these questions are very important, and I cannot judge the quality of the paper at present.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

None.

Author Response

Thank you once again for the valuable suggestions you provided for my article. Your feedback is highly academic and professional, significantly contributing to the improvement of the article's quality. It has greatly enhanced the logical rigor and exploration of gentrification studies. I sincerely appreciate your input.

Based on your suggestions, I have made the following revisions:

1) I moved the discussion section to the front of the conclusion, summarizing the shortcomings of the article. Unlike Western scholars who study gentrification in multiple cities, we focused on one city due to constraints and our emphasis on the relationship between indigenous residents and newcomers. Although we employed a questionnaire survey, specifically designing a satisfaction survey, subjectivity may impact the results. While Western scholars focus on racial issues resulting from gentrification, China emphasizes the value of "neighbors over distant relatives," emphasizing the need to break down neighborhood isolation.

2) I rephrased the conclusion based on resident satisfaction surveys and in-depth interviews. Our conclusions are as follows: the area around JuLong Lake is undergoing green gentrification, but dissatisfaction arises between indigenous residents and newcomers due to green preferences, lifestyle, and income disparities, leading to social differentiation and neighborhood isolation. Indigenous residents express dissatisfaction with their occupations and income, requiring assistance. Green gentrification has both positive and negative effects, driving regional prosperity and revitalization, but may also impact fairness and justice in the city, necessitating a nuanced perspective.

3) The article's structure has been reorganized, moving sections such as "4.2.1 Common Method Bias Test" and "4.2.2 Reliability (Consistency) Test" to the research methods section.

I hope these modifications meet your expectations.

Round 4

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After this round of revision, the quality of the paper has been improved to a certain extent, but there are still the following two problems.

1. The structure of the paper is still chaotic. For example, "4.4 Correlation Analysis" should be placed in the Methods section, and other similar cases should also be modified.

2. The discussion section still does not provide enough quantitative comparison. Especially, for the variable elements selected in the paper, it is necessary to increase the comparative content of discussion and supplement the quantitative comparative analysis.

Author Response

I sincerely appreciate your professional and meticulous advice, which has greatly helped improve my article. Under your guidance, I believe my work will further enhance, particularly in terms of the rigor of the structure and the depth of the discussion section. I have carefully read your valuable feedback and made the following modifications to my article:

 

1. I reorganized the structure of the article to make it more rigorous. I moved the relevant analysis and differential analysis from Chapter Four to the Research Methods section in Chapter Three. I also adjusted the order of the data verification section, ensuring the logical sequence of Chapter Three as follows: first, an introduction to the current status and recent land changes in the surrounding areas of Julong Lake; next, addressing the research gaps and problems related to green gentrification mentioned earlier, presenting the research design and data sources; then, describing the residents' demographic situation, analyzing the satisfaction survey results, verifying the data's authenticity, and finally, supplementing the satisfaction survey with in-depth interview results. Chapter Four has been adjusted to summarize the results of the satisfaction survey and in-depth interviews.

 

2. I have thoroughly supplemented and improved the discussion section. Based on the variables of this study, I supplemented and argued the experimental research with quantitative research results from other domestic authors. Additionally, I incorporated relevant literature from Western countries emphasizing the need for community integration and assistance in integrating indigenous people into modern cities, making the discussion section more comprehensive.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General Comments:

I think the topic to be presented in this manuscript is worthy of investigation. However, a lot of aspects still need to be further elaborated and clarified, including literature review and identification of research gap, a clear research question, methodology, presentation of results/findings, discussion, as well as a sound conclusion. Also, there are many short paragraphs (2-3 sentences) in the current form of the manuscript, which makes it more looks like a working report rather than an academic article. Thus, the whole manuscript really needs a better writing structure as well as analytical framework in order to further clarify its contribution to the research domain.

Specific Comments:

1) Literature review is absent. While many of the short paragraphs in Intro are actually the “review” of the existing studies, which could be organized into tables. It is suggested using longer paragraphs to further analyse those existing related studies.

2) This is an international journal, try not to use terms like “foreign countries”, could be changed the wording as “western countries,” “other countries outside China,” etc.

3) Methodology must be improved. It needs to be further elaborated by providing more details, including data source, analytical framework, design of questionnaires, outline of interview, information of interviewees, data collection, data processing, as well as data verification, etc.

4) Discussion is missing.

5) Limitations of the study should also be clarified.

6) Table 1 is disordered and not readable.

7) Fig. 7 - The conceptualized “Gentrification Development Model” is rather basic, suggest to further develop based on a more systematic as well as deeper analysis of the investigation results.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

NA

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below. I have made corresponding revisions to the paper based on your suggestions. Your feedback has been instrumental in improving the quality of my paper.

Comments 1: Literature review is absent. While many of the short paragraphs in Intro are actually the “review” of the existing studies, which could be organized into tables. It is suggested using longer paragraphs to further analyse those existing related studies.

Response 1: I have once again revised my literature review, making it more concise and reorganizing the sources into categories. I have also created a table for better organization and edited the text accordingly.

Comments 2: This is an international journal, try not to use terms like “foreign countries”, could be changed the wording as “western countries,” “other countries outside China,” etc.

Response 2: I have changed all instances of "foreign countries" in the article to "Western countries" to make the language more precise.

Comments 3: Methodology must be improved. It needs to be further elaborated by providing more details, including data source, analytical framework, design of questionnaires, outline of interview, information of interviewees, data collection, data processing, as well as data verification, etc.

Response 3: Based on the current gaps in research on green gentrification, I have placed a particular focus on two distinct groups: indigenous communities and new residents. I designed satisfaction surveys regarding the attributes of residents in the Julong Lake Park, their personal circumstances, and neighborhood relationships. After conducting a Common Method Bias Test and assessing data reliability (reliability), I proceeded to perform differential and correlation analyses on the survey results, ultimately deriving experimental conclusions.

Comments 4: Discussion is missing.

Response 4: I have reworked the discussion section of the article, highlighting through satisfaction surveys that there exists social differentiation and class segregation between indigenous communities and new residents. While green gentrification can help address the shortcomings of suburban green resources, it also presents certain challenges to urban fairness and equity.

Comments 5:  Limitations of the study should also be clarified.

Response 5：I have added to the section on the limitations of the study, pointing out that while the article strives for rigor and objectivity, there are still some subjective aspects in the interviews with residents. Additionally, the study is limited by the relatively small sample size.

Comments 6: Table 1 is disordered and not readable.

Response 6：I have reworked this table, modifying both the title and content to enhance its readability.

Comments 7：Fig. 7 - The conceptualized “Gentrification Development Model” is rather basic, suggest to further develop based on a more systematic as well as deeper analysis of the investigation results.

Response 7：I have rewritten the mechanism of green gentrification in Longhu Park, focusing on the population displacement aspect of the research. The process of middle-class "direct displacement" and "indirect displacement" of indigenous communities, as well as the filtering process applied to indigenous communities, has been elucidated based on the content of the article.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review of "The research on Green Gentrification in Chinese Urban New Areas: A Case Study of the Surrounding Areas of Julong Lake in Yancheng City"

·        The study explores green gentrification in new urban areas in China, focusing on Julong Lake in Yancheng City. It categorizes gentrification into three stages, providing a nuanced understanding of the process and its relationship to green initiatives.

 ·        The research problem in the article lacks clarity, which is evident both in the abstract and in the overall presentation. As a result, the research comes across as a broad overview of the topic rather than a focused study addressing a specific problem.

 

·        The detailed demographic profile of Yancheng residents and their motivations behind property purchases add depth to the study. However, it would be beneficial to provide more context on the socio-economic background of Yancheng City and how it compares to other urban areas in China.

·        The specific research conducted at Ziwei Garden Longbo Bay, Jinying International Garden, and Jinhui City offers a practical perspective on the impacts of green gentrification. The comparative analysis of the satisfaction levels of indigenous and new residents is insightful, though the authors could further elaborate on the implications of these findings.

 

·        While the study acknowledges the complexity of green gentrification and the need for environmental justice, it could delve deeper into potential solutions or strategies for managing these challenges. The role of government policies, corporate behavior, and community engagement in shaping sustainable and equitable green gentrification processes is an area that could be expanded upon.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below. I have made corresponding revisions to the paper based on your suggestions. Your feedback has been instrumental in improving the quality of my paper.

Comments 1: The research problem in the article lacks clarity, which is evident both in the abstract and in the overall presentation.

Response 1: I have reconfirmed the topic of the article, which focuses on the study of the relationship between indigenous people and newcomers, with a particular emphasis on whether new residents develop a "green preference." I also investigate whether there is social differentiation and neighboring residential segregation between indigenous people and new residents. Furthermore, I will summarize the research findings in the abstract to make the research of the article more clear.

Comments 2: The comparative analysis of the satisfaction levels of indigenous and new residents is insightful, though the authors could further elaborate on the implications of these findings.

Response 2: Based on the current gaps in research on green gentrification, I have placed a particular focus on two distinct groups: indigenous communities and new residents. I designed satisfaction surveys regarding the attributes of residents in the Julong Lake Park, their personal circumstances, and neighborhood relationships. After conducting a Common Method Bias Test and assessing data reliability (reliability), I proceeded to perform differential and correlation analyses on the survey results, ultimately deriving experimental conclusions.

Comments 3: While the study acknowledges the complexity of green gentrification and the need for environmental justice, it could delve deeper into potential solutions or strategies for managing these challenges.

Response 3: The article will address social differentiation and neighboring residential segregation between indigenous people and newcomers. It will propose relevant strategies involving government and community actions to make cities more equitable and just, and to ensure a more rational allocation of green resources.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The analysis method is simple, and the correlation between questionnaire and image data can not be seen.

2. The questionnaire should be attached as an appendix;

3. The questionnaire needs to be analyzed for reliability and validity in order to test the reliability and validity of the questionnaire.

4. Based on the data currently available, the conclusions are not reliable.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

NO

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below. I have made corresponding revisions to the paper based on your suggestions. Your feedback has been instrumental in improving the quality of my paper.

Comments 1: The analysis method is simple, and the correlation between questionnaire and image data can not be seen.

Response 1: Based on the current gaps in research on green gentrification, I have placed a particular focus on two distinct groups: indigenous communities and new residents. I designed satisfaction surveys regarding the attributes of residents in the Julong Lake Park, their personal circumstances, and neighborhood relationships. After conducting a Common Method Bias Test and assessing data reliability (reliability), I proceeded to perform differential and correlation analyses on the survey results, ultimately deriving experimental conclusions.

Comments 2:  The questionnaire should be attached as an appendix。

Response 2: I will attach the survey questionnaire at the end of the paper.

Comments 3: The questionnaire needs to be analyzed for reliability and validity in order to test the reliability and validity of the questionnaire.

Response 3: I conducted a Common Method Bias Test and a reliability (validity) test on the survey results to ensure the accuracy and authenticity of the questionnaire data.

Comments 4: Based on the data currently available, the conclusions are not reliable.

Response 4：I have made further revisions to the structure and content of the article, reaffirming the article's theme. Through the formulation of research questions, research design, and analysis of experimental structure, I have ultimately validated the hypotheses that there is social differentiation and neighboring residential segregation between indigenous people and newcomers, creating a logical framework.

 

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see the attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below. I have made corresponding revisions to the paper based on your suggestions. Your feedback has been instrumental in improving the quality of my paper.

Comments 1: Quantitative conclusions should be supplemented in the Abstract

Response 1:I have reconfirmed the topic of the article, which focuses on the study of the relationship between indigenous people and newcomers, with a particular emphasis on whether new residents develop a "green preference." I also investigate whether there is social differentiation and neighboring residential segregation between indigenous people and new residents. Furthermore, I will summarize the research findings in the abstract to make the research of the article more clear.

Comments 2:  Lines 53-116, The subtitle can no longer use 1, 2, 3, ……， otherwise it will cause confusion. In addition, the summary of this part of the literature is insufficient, it needs to be condensed.

Response 2: I have once again revised my literature review, making it more concise and reorganizing the sources into categories. I have also created a table for better organization and edited the text accordingly.

Comments 3: Lines 126-177, The explanation of the meaning of "green gentrification" is too redundant. The development process and the meaning of words should be more accurate and simplified.

Response 3: After revisiting relevant literature, I have summarized and refined the concept of "green gentrification," providing a more precise definition in the article.

Comments 4: The drawing is not standard, there is no compass, etc.

Response 4: I have re-edited the images in the article and added a compass rose.

Comments 5: Research Methods: The analysis of the questionnaire is too simple, the analysis method is single, and the result is not innovative.

Response 5：Based on the current gaps in research on green gentrification, I have placed a particular focus on two distinct groups: indigenous communities and new residents. I designed satisfaction surveys regarding the attributes of residents in the Julong Lake Park, their personal circumstances, and neighborhood relationships. After conducting a Common Method Bias Test and assessing data reliability (reliability), I proceeded to perform differential and correlation analyses on the survey results, ultimately deriving experimental conclusions.

Comments 6: Line 211, "The survey was conducted from September 24, 2022, to March 24, 2023, during 211 weekends from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM." The time span of the questionnaire was that the first half of the questionnaire was during the control of the 2019n-CoV and the second half was unblocked. The epidemic prevention policy would have a great impact on the research results, which was not considered.

Response 6：I have added a section in the article mentioning that the lockdown during the pandemic may have led to inaccuracies in the questionnaire results. In accordance with the requirements of both my graduation thesis and this paper, I re-administered the survey during the summer. Additionally, during one-on-one interviews, I inquired about the residents' experiences regarding the impact of the pandemic on their use of Julong Lake and included this information in their interview summaries.

Comments 7："4 Mechanisms of Green Gentrification in Jurong Lake Park" Part 4 does not carry out discussion based on the previous research results, and the data support is insufficient. It only states some objective consensus. The discussion section is completely unsupported by data. Nor is there a horizontal comparison with other countries or regions in this part.

Response 7：I have rewritten the mechanism of green gentrification in Longhu Park, focusing on the population displacement aspect of the research. The process of middle-class "direct displacement" and "indirect displacement" of indigenous communities, as well as the filtering process applied to indigenous communities, has been elucidated based on the content of the article.

Comments 8：Lines 575-786, This part of the content lacks the basis, all is qualitative analysis.

Response 8：In the latter part of the article, based on the earlier resident satisfaction survey, I have elaborated on the mechanisms of green gentrification and its socio-economic effects. Additionally, I have supplemented the conclusions and identified areas for improvement. This addresses the previous issue of digressing into general discussions on green gentrification without grounding them in the specific research.