The Impact of Green Space on University Students’ Mental Health: The Mediating Roles of Solitude Competence and Perceptual Restoration

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments to the Author

Its an interesting study however authors are needed to incorporate certain changes to make this study publishable.

1. The introduction section of the study needs improvement. The research background (common ground) and gap (complexity) are unclearly covered. Please allow me to offer an alternative and in my opinion, more intuitive and attractive way of structuring an introduction. I suggest that the authors follow the suggestions of Lange and Pfarrer, (2017) when structuring the introduction. Such structure allows completing the introduction with five major paragraphs with central story line.

Lange,D., & Pfarrer, M.D. (2017). Editors' comments: Sense and structure- The core building blocks of an AMR article. Academy of Management Review, 42(3), 407-416

2. I would also suggest to cite additional relevant literature which demonstrate the affective health of knowledge workers that is crucial for the betterment of universities;

1. Shafait, Z., & Huang, J. (2023). Exploring the Nexus of Emotional Intelligence and University Performance: An Investigation Through Perceived Organizational Support and Innovative Work Behavior. Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 4295-4313.

2. Shafait, Z., & Huang, J. (2023). From knowledge-oriented leadership to emotional intelligence to creative performance: teachers’ assessment from Chinese higher education. Current Psychology, 1-14.

3. Shafait, Z., & Huang, J. (2022). Nexus of Emotional Intelligence and Learning Outcomes: A Cross-Country Study of China and Pakistan Higher Educational Institutes. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(23), 16215.

4. Cai, B., Shafait, Z., & Chen, L. (2022). Teachers’ Adoption of Emotions-Based Learning Outcomes: Significance of Teachers’ Competence, Creative Performance, and University Performance. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 812447.

2. Literature/ use of theory. As a rule of thumb, make the lit review about the same length as the discussion. But you cannot make this more than 1800 words long, to stay within your word limit. In terms of the content, you need to go beyond describing a series of relevant references and tell us how your interpretation of the literature shows the gaps that exist, and how the proposed approach to the literature brings about novel opportunities to reinterpret the literature that will allow advancement in our understanding in the field. The literature review is too descriptive, and I cannot see the wood for the trees.

Please work on your theoretical underpinnings. How theory can be fixed with these variables and can contribute. Incorporating the “WHY” factor is important.

3. Methodology. You need to better justify your choice of methodology, and whether this is either innovative or the standard approach, for your theoretical framework (bearing in mind that the theoretical framework is not clearly defined).

4. Results and discussion. While the results are rigorous, their interpretation is quite descriptive and lacks originality. The format of your writing means that you are playing safe here, for example, you mechanically show how your findings corroborate aspects of the literature that were already well-known to the readers. Instead, you ought to be more ambitious here, and show what’s really new about your findings, but also how does your work expand the current understanding of what the literature has already reported, how you are saying something that makes a substantial change in our collective understanding that all authors studying this field should be aware of and cite in the future. Your contribution needs to be much more explicit; your discussion needs to genuinely expand the boundaries of knowledge.

5. Discussion.  This needs to be a coherent and cohesive set of arguments that take us beyond this study in particular and help us see the relevance of what you have found to the wider world.  You need to emphasize the significance of your work: How does your finding help us transform the higher education industry towards being more environmental friendly? Why is this study really helpful to the tourism industry to contribute towards the Sustainable Development Goals?

6. Conclusions. This section needs more than a summary of the previous sections and adds value. You need to emphasize and explicitly spell out the contribution to the theory that your analysis brings about.

Discussion should be done considering the tested hypotheses. Please read and cite the latest papers as there are a lot of recent papers on this topic on the Web of Science.

Revisit your theoretical implication. Didn’t find any theory and you have concluded your theoretical implications.

Proofreading of the paper is required as I found grammatical mistakes. 

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your thorough review of our paper.

1.Introduction: We have incorporated your valuable suggestions regarding the introduction structure. We added commonalities and differences in the research background, highlighting distinctions from other studies and specifying the research objectives. (P4,196~201)We have included the references you recommended to support the significance of emotional well-being among knowledge workers in university development (References [4],[8],[13],[47]).

2.Regarding the literature review, we made reductions based on your advice. The absence of a specific theory description is due to the lack of an absolute definition, and we have justified our approach by aligning with empirical studies in the field. The measurement methods for specific variables are detailed beneath Tables 2 to 5.

3.Methods: We use a standard method to validate SEM models, involving a structure model and a measurement model. The structural model integrates underlying theory, representing hypothetical relationships derived from the concept. The measurement model contains metric variables or references. Figure 3 illustrates the conceptual framework based on the presented assumptions. The path model includes two main elements: the structural model and the measurement model, representing assumed relationships and specific measurement variables and indicators, respectively.

Similar references:

Malekinezhad, F., Courtney, P., bin Lamit, H., Vigani, M. (2020). Investigating the mental health impacts of university campus green space through perceived sensory dimensions and the mediation effects of perceived restorativeness on restoration experience. Frontiers in Public Health, 8, 578241.

Liu, W., Sun, N., Guo, J., Zheng, Z. (2022). Campus green spaces, academic achievement and mental health of college students. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(14), 8618.

4.Results: We appreciate your valuable suggestions on the results section. Addressing the complexity and mechanical presentation, we modified the results section, incorporating comparisons with past research to highlight our study's specific contributions and new insights into student health on university campuses.

5.Discussion: Following your advice, we acknowledge the need to explore the research results within a broader context. Recognizing the interplay between individuals and the environment can facilitate a genuine transformation of design thinking, promoting continuous environmental development with positive effects on psychological well-being.

6.Conclusion: Based on your suggestions, we added a comparative analysis of our study with current empirical research in the conclusion（p26,586~687, emphasizing the theoretical implications added to the literature review.（p3,111~113）

We highly value your feedback and acknowledge grammatical errors and minor language issues in the paper. We will proceed with proofreading and revision to enhance grammatical accuracy and language fluency, taking your suggestions seriously to improve the paper's quality. Thanks for your guidance; we will ensure the paper is fully revised before the final submission.

Your suggestions are crucial to us, and we are committed to making the necessary revisions to enhance the overall quality of the article. If you have any further suggestions or concerns, please feel free to let us know. Thank you again for your careful review and constructive feedback.

Sincerely,

Jinghua Jin

Reviewer 2 Report

I appreciate the authors novel approach to mental health and the importance of green spaces, particularly at the university level.

I however have a number of suggestions. The introduction, literature review, and conceptual framework are all fine, but when it comes to the results, the paper becomes a mess and basically not easy to understand what you are trying to say demeriting your article.

Thus my suggestion is that you either create tables that summarize your findings and guide the reader into these results, or that you create a shorter article with an annex section should the editors of the journal allow it.

Otherwise, is a novel article

some sections are unreadable, particularly in page 7. and some editorial polishing is necessary

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for acknowledging our novel perspectives on the importance of mental health and green spaces. We appreciate your positive feedback on the introduction, literature review, and conceptual framework.

We sincerely accept your suggestions regarding the results section, especially concerning its clarity and challenges in understanding. Your input is invaluable. Due to the numerous dimensions and factors involved, the results section presented some clarity issues. We have incorporated your suggestions and made modifications to the results section. Firstly, we have provided a procedural explanation before the overall results analysis, outlining the software versions used and the workflow (P17,371~380). Additionally, we have improved the discussion section in (p26,586~687), enhancing the clarity of conclusion explanations and simplifying the listing of results for easier reader comprehension.

We appreciate your comments on the English language quality, particularly regarding some parts on page 7 that were challenging to read. We will carefully review and edit these sections to ensure improvement in the overall clarity and coherence of the paper.

Your suggestions are crucial to us, and we are committed to making necessary revisions to enhance the overall quality of the article. If you have any further suggestions or concerns, please feel free to inform us.

Once again, thank you for your thorough review and constructive feedback.

Sincerely,

Jinghua Jin

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you very much for the opportunity to review such an interesting manuscript on the subject. The title is fascinating and the conclusions are interesting, but I also have some questions about some parts of the manuscript.

In the research and design, how does the author divide the environmental characteristics of campus green space? What are these criteria? For example, what is the difference between refuge space and social space?

How does the author connect the environmental characteristics of green space with the sensory dimension of perception? Are these links really sufficiently differentiated from the sensory dimension?

The applicability of the findings of this study is also challenged by the authors' samples. The demographics information in these samples was not sufficiently disclosed, and the results did not distinguish between different groups. The broad conclusion is not good for the specific mental health problems of current college students.

Moreover, is the single-university sample sufficiently universal? The author's sample implies a unified management system, geographical environment and campus culture, these factors can not be ignored.

The authors should deal with the language of the manuscript properly polished, eliminate some duplication expression, optimize the format of manuscript, with a focus on the table layout.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your thorough review of our paper. We appreciate your positive assessment of the title and the acknowledgment of our interesting conclusions. Simultaneously, we value the constructive feedback you provided and are willing to address each of your concerns:

Campus Green Space Environmental Characteristics:

In response to your valuable suggestions, we recognize the importance of clearly defining the criteria for environmental characteristics. In the revised paper, we will provide a more detailed explanation of how we defined and categorized the environmental characteristics of campus green spaces, including specific criteria used for classification. Our study primarily utilized on-site research and, based on the research by Grahn & Stigsdotter, 2010, categorized the environmental characteristics of campus green spaces. Specific modifications are located in Table 1 of the manuscript. For example, under "Social," we describe the environment where restaurants and entertainment venues are located, including details about the flooring, seating, lighting, and safety features. Under "Refuge," we define an environment with playground equipment, tables, benches, bushes, and a sense of safety.

Connection Between Environmental Characteristics and Perceived Sensations:

We acknowledge the need to more clearly explain how we connect the environmental characteristics of green spaces with the dimensions of perceived sensations. In the revised version, we will elaborate on these connections, ensuring a more detailed and differentiated exploration of sensory dimensions. Detailed classifications are presented in the newly added Table 1 of the manuscript.

Applicability of Research Results and Demographic Information of the Sample Population:

We appreciate your attention to the demographic information of the sample population and your questioning of the applicability of the research results. Comprehensive demographic information is provided in Table 11 of the manuscript. The lack of analysis for different groups is indeed a limitation of this study, as no significant gender differences were found in the analysis process, which is not reflected in the manuscript. Focusing on improving the specificity of our conclusions regarding the mental health issues of current university students is one of the directions for future supplementary research.

Generalizability of a Single University Sample:

We acknowledge the limitations of a single university sample and agree that the homogeneity of the sample may impact the generalizability of the research results. We will address this limitation in the revised paper.

English Language Quality:

Thank you for your feedback on the English language quality. In the revised version, we will thoroughly polish the language, eliminate redundancies, optimize the paper's format, and pay special attention to table layouts to improve overall readability.

Sincerely,

Jinghua Jin

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors have comprehensively addressed the raised concerns this time around therefore, I recommend acceptance of manuscript in current shape.

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your review and valuable suggestions. We are pleased to note that you found our responses comprehensive and recommend accepting the manuscript in its current form.

Regarding the comments on the quality of English language, we acknowledge the need for minor editing. We will carefully review the grammar and language usage in the final version to ensure precise expression.

Once again, we appreciate your thorough review and support.

Sincerely,

Jinghua Jin

Reviewer 2 Report

I apprewciate the authors revising the article with my comments. other than a minor editing process and that the version I have has some pages cutted off, I have no further comments.

Minor editing is necessary.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your review and valuable suggestions. We have diligently revised the manuscript based on the issues you pointed out, ensuring the improvement of the paper. Regarding the reduction of pages in the manuscript, this was done to facilitate readability by adjusting and modifying tables to enhance the presentation of results.

Guidance on the quality of English language will be thoroughly checked in the final version to ensure grammatical accuracy and language precision.

Once again, we appreciate your meticulous review and support.

Sincerely,

Jinghua Jin

Reviewer 3 Report

I am very grateful to the author for his replies to my concerns, which further enhanced my understanding of this interesting work.

The author deeply analyzes the effects of different solitude spaces on perceptual recovery. I am curious, what kind of solitude space is more conducive to the restorative outcome of college students? The author thinks that there is no difference between groups, so there should be differences in space? In addition, what are the implications of the research results for space utilization and campus landscape planning? Increasing the analysis of spatial dimension will attract more readers to pay attention to the results of this study.

The revised manuscript is huge in length, with as many as 17 tables, which puts forward high reading requirements for both reviewers and readers. Especially in the conclusion part, it took me at least 5 minutes to read, and I was completely unable to grasp the author's core points quickly.

Here, it is sincerely suggested that the author should optimize the structure of the manuscript and integrate the tables, some of which can be added to the article as annex. Be sure to optimize the conclusions and present your main conclusions and understandings in the form of key points as much as possible.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your thorough review of our paper and the valuable feedback provided. Your insights have played a crucial role in further refining our manuscript, and we are pleased to see your deepened interest in our research.

Regarding your mention of the impact of solitude spaces on perceptual recovery, we did not categorize spaces solely from a physical perspective but considered the dimensions perceived by college students in different spaces. In a given area on campus, students may perceive several of the eight dimensions classified in the paper, but one dimension tends to play a predominant role. As you pointed out, we indeed acknowledge that the type of space may influence the recovery outcomes for college students. According to statistical results, when selecting solitude spaces in campus study areas, students primarily choose spaces characterized by shelter and sociability. Subsequently, the remaining dimensions, ranked in descending order of preference, include cultural, natural, species richness, tranquility, and lastly, spatial. However, regarding specific differences in recovery outcomes for college students, we believe that perhaps incorporating physiological measurements in future research could lead to a more scientifically grounded discussion of this new issue.

The insights into campus landscape planning derived from our research outcomes are indeed a crucial aspect. However, in this study, we emphasized exploring the intrinsic motivation of college students rather than investigating the actual physical spaces. This is a limitation on our part, and we appreciate your suggestion. We will address this in future research endeavors.

As for the issue you raised regarding the extensive length of the revised manuscript, we sincerely apologize for any inconvenience caused during your reading. Due to the numerous dimensions and factors involved in the study, and the presentation requirements of the SEM model validation process, adding tables to the appendix might compromise the rigor of the results. Therefore, we have endeavored to integrate the tables as much as possible. Additionally, based on your advice, we have streamlined the entire conclusion section (p27-28,664-707) to ensure that key points and conclusions are presented more concisely, enhancing the overall reading experience.

Once again, we appreciate your meticulous review and support.

Sincerely,

Jinghua Jin