Effects of Urban Landmark Landscapes on Residents’ Place Identity: The Moderating Role of Residence Duration
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article is interesting from a human geography perspective. It is certainly of interest to the international reader, from the point of view of approaching issues of place landscape identity (comparing the results of this type of research for different countries / cultural communities, etc.).
Contemporary research on the perception of the human living environment, is extremely important in terms of efforts to improve the quality of life especially in large cities (through proper spatial planning and management). One important element of quality of life and wellbeing is undoubtedly a sense of place identity.
The article was well prepared in terms of content. The article contains a clearly defined aim and research hypotheses, the stages of the research process were correctly explained. The combination of qualitative and quantitative research methods allowed the authors to obtain reliable results.
It is certainly of interest to the international reader, from the point of view of approaching issues of place landscape identity (comparing the results of this type of research for different countries / cultural communities, etc.).
At the same time, the present study has an applied character due to the qualitative research carried out among local residents. It can serve local authorities in the process of urban space management
Author Response
December 31, 2023
Dear Referees and Editors,
I am writing in response to the reviews of our manuscript titled " Effects of Urban Landmark Landscapes on Residents’ Place Identity: The Moderating Role of Residence Duration "(ID:2764920) submitted to Sustainability. First and foremost, I would like to express my gratitude to you for the insightful comments and suggestions.
Thank you very much for your acknowledgment. In response to feedback from several reviewers, we have restructured and meticulously revised our article, highlighting all modifications in yellow for clarity. Our revision includes a more extensive review of relevant literature to deepen our discussion on the concept of local identity, research methodology, dimensions, and influencing factors. These enhancements aim to strengthen the support for our hypotheses, thereby making the article more coherent and well-organized. Additionally, we have refined the discussion section to better align with the theme of the column, focusing specifically on the connection with tourism. We believe that these revisions have significantly strengthened our paper and have addressed the concerns raised by the reviewers.
We appreciate your time and effort in reviewing our article.We look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Fan Zhang
College of Landscape Architecture, Nanjing Forestry University
No. 159 Longpan Road
Suojin Village Street
Xuanwu District
Nanjing City, Jiangsu Province, 210037
China
Phone: (+86)-18913855338
Email: [email protected]
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article is very interesting and provides insight into the research on landscape landmarks' importance for place identity. I have only two small uncertainties - first, can we still name a five-minute interview a deep one? Second, how the number of 200 respondents is representative for the local population or it does not have to be? If the answers are within the article I just could now find them, ignore them. If not, maybe the explanation could be added.
Author Response
December 31, 2023
Dear Referees and Editors,
I am writing in response to the reviews of our manuscript titled " Effects of Urban Landmark Landscapes on Residents’ Place Identity: The Moderating Role of Residence Duration "(ID:2764920) submitted to Sustainability. First and foremost, I would like to express my gratitude to you for the insightful comments and suggestions.We have carefully considered and addressed each comment and have made significant revisions to the manuscript accordingly.
Below, I provide a point-by-point response to the comment:
Comment 1: Can we still name a five-minute interview a deep one?
Response: Thank you for your invaluable suggestion. We have reviewed the criteria and acknowledge that in-depth interviews typically exceed 30 minutes in duration. Regrettably, due to practical constraints, some of our interviews fell short of this benchmark, yet they still yielded valuable insights. Our questionnaire, predominantly based on an extensive literature review, was further enriched by these interviews and subsequently refined through expert evaluation. This modification is explicitly addressed in the revised lines 200-204 of the main text. In our future research endeavors, we will endeavor to conduct interviews that are not only longer but also more precise. We are immensely grateful for your constructive feedback, which has significantly contributed to the rigor of our article.
Comment 2: How the number of 200 respondents is representative for the local population or it does not have to be?
Response: Thank you for your invaluable suggestion. Our survey primarily targeted residents of Nanjing with stable employment. We employed random sampling at six significant landmarks in Nanjing: the Sun Yat-sen Mausoleum, Xuanwu Lake, the Confucius Temple, the Ming City Wall, the Zifeng Mansion, and the Nanjing Eye. A total of 211 questionnaires were distributed, resulting in 203 valid responses. To comply with statistical requirements, we ensured that the sample size was at least five times the number of variables in our study, considering both the sample recovery rate and potential variability in residents' perceptions of different landmark landscapes. This approach aligns with the criteria for statistical significance. Moreover, the sampling strategy enhances the representativeness of our respondents. Expanding our sample size in future studies could further increase this representativeness. We are deeply grateful for your insightful suggestions, which are instrumental in guiding our research.
We appreciate your time and effort in reviewing our article.We look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Fan Zhang
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper has the potential to offer interesting insight into the ways and reasons why landmarks can help foster people's identification with a place, and how landmarks contribute to a place's particular identity.
There are however a variety of weaknesses with the article that need to be addressed to make it stronger, and its connection to tourism, hospitality and events is insuffient for its inclusion in a special issue on this topic.
Structurally: The definition of 'place identity' needs to be clarified from the beginning. Further discussion of this theme comes somewhat late in the article, and an enduring problem is that what is actually meant by the term remains vague, conflating both people's affective investment with a place as well as places' identities. This throws to the fore the question of what is being investigated: how to create a 'unique' place, or how to foster people's identification with a place (that they live).
There needs to be more nuanced engagement with the wider literature, and more of the discussion of 'place identity' needs to be covered in the first sections. The wider literature is too often summated in single sentences, or even just turned into lists of different 'models' rather than offering further discussion of what this scholarship has actually argued (and what is meant by, for example a place identity being constituted by "; love, sadness, joy, security, and identity" (page 2). In engaging with the wider literature, there needs to be a clearer identification of a gap, or how this article is significantly building on the findings and contentions of the wider field.
The fact that this is largely absent contributes to some weaknesses in the hypotheses: not that these are wrong, but that they are so broad. This breadth contributes to their predictability - for example, it is well established that living in a place for longer periods of time makes that place more meaningful to people's identities. Overall, what is being explored through these hypotheses remains overly broad, and therefore the findings echo this.
I also would note that the codes overlap, as do the extent to which these refer to the particularity of a place, or people’s identification with it (this is my previous point about distinguishing between ‘whose’ identity is being studied: the place, or people). Some of the findings are obviously partly due to the case study: choosing a place with significant cultural heritage and history makes this a key feature, but not all places have this, yet can still be sources of pride and identification for those whose hometown it is.
Regarding the discussion: more consideration of the implication of some patterns is needed. That it is those who have lived the longest in Nanjing who were most aware of the 'cultural-historical' factors raises the question why, this is not simply an aging process. Despite discussion of implication for tourism, there does not appear to have been interviews with tourists, and they are not residents.
Overall, this article needs to be made tighter. It needs more situating in the wider literature. And the question of what is being investigated - whose identity - should be clearer in the discussion, and exploration why particular patterns emerge in the data.
Regarding methods and ethics: there is no mention of ethics review/clearance for research with human subjects.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The English is largely clear and coherent, though there are unusual font colorations that should be addressed. Regarding clarity though, see my earlier point in the review that there could be more explication of the terms being used, and what is actually meant by them.
Author Response
December 31, 2023
Dear Referees and Editors,
I am writing in response to the reviews of our manuscript titled " Effects of Urban Landmark Landscapes on Residents’ Place Identity: The Moderating Role of Residence Duration "(ID:2764920) submitted to Sustainability. First and foremost, I would like to express my gratitude to you for the insightful comments and suggestions.We have carefully considered and addressed each comment and have made significant revisions to the manuscript accordingly.
Below, I provide a point-by-point response to the comment:
Comment 1: It’s connection to tourism, hospitality and events is insuffient for its inclusion in a special issue on this topic.
Response: Thank you for your invaluable suggestion. To better align with the theme of the column, we have expanded upon the cultural aspects initially discussed in our article by incorporating additional literature, thereby emphasizing the connection with tourism. We propose that the development of urban landmark landscapes not only strengthens residents' sense of place identity but also enhances the uniqueness of cities, thereby boosting their appeal as tourist destinations and fostering tourism growth. This interplay between urban landmark landscapes and tourism is thoroughly explicated in lines 21-23 of the abstract and lines 35-46 of the introduction, where we provide literature citations and detailed textual analysis. Furthermore, the intersection of our study with tourism is explored in lines 556-567 of the discussion section. These revisions significantly enhance the article's relevance to culture, tourism, and place identity.
Comment 2: Structurally: The definition of 'place identity' needs to be clarified from the beginning.This throws to the fore the question of what is being investigated: how to create a 'unique' place, or how to foster people's identification with a place (that they live).
Response: Thank you for your invaluable suggestion. The concept of place identity encompasses a variety of research perspectives and has been defined diversely by scholars. Our study specifically investigates whether uniquely planned and designed landmark landscapes, as envisioned by urban planners, contribute to the development of place identity, thereby influencing urban planning and tourism. Essentially, we assess the sense of place identity among urban residents using landmark landscapes as a tangible measure. By evaluating residents' perception of place identity, we aim to inform the design of landmark landscapes in urban development. This approach is intended to cultivate distinct urban characteristics and appeal, ultimately enhancing strategies for tourism marketing.
Comment 3: There needs to be more nuanced engagement with the wider literature, and more of the discussion of 'place identity' needs to be covered in the first sections.In engaging with the wider literature, there needs to be a clearer identification of a gap, or how this article is significantly building on the findings and contentions of the wider field.
Response: Thank you for your invaluable suggestion. As research in this field advances, the concept of place identity continues to acquire diverse interpretations and connotations. Although a consensus on its precise meaning remains elusive, its role as a synthesis of physical reality and social cognition is universally acknowledged as significant. In the introduction, particularly in lines 80-128, we have expanded our literature review to offer a more in-depth exploration of place identity. This includes enriching discussions on its conceptual framework, research methodologies, dimensions, and influencing factors. Place identity is understood as a dynamic interplay between people and places, reflecting an interdependent relationship. It is a subjective social construct, deeply rooted in the objective physical environment. Our study examines urban residents' place identity, focusing on the physical characteristics of landmark landscapes, their historical and cultural significance, and function. Grounded in environmental psychology, this research integrates literature review and interview data to conceptualize place identity through the lenses of cognition, emotion, and intention. We utilize a robust and reliable quantitative approach to assess how landmark landscapes influence the construction of place identity.
Comment 4: Some of the findings are obviously partly due to the case study: choosing a place with significant cultural heritage and history makes this a key feature, but not all places have this, yet can still be sources of pride and identification for those whose hometown it is.
Response: Thank you for your invaluable suggestion. Landmark landscapes in this study are categorized into two types: historical and cultural landscapes, and modern landscapes. Based on prior research, a consensus among Nanjing scholars has identified 20 significant landscapes. These comprise 13 historical and cultural iconic landscapes and 7 modern landmarks. While historical and cultural landscapes inherently possess historical attributes, their spatial and environmental contexts are subject to continuous transformation. Concurrently, urban development often integrates new landmark landscapes. Place identity, in turn, is not static; it evolves in response to local and external social, economic, cultural, and political shifts, representing a dynamic psychological construct. This study focuses on examining the influence of these two types of landmark landscapes on the development of urban place identity. The aim is to provide actionable insights for urban planning and construction.
Comment 5: Regarding the discussion: more consideration of the implication of some patterns is needed. That it is those who have lived the longest in Nanjing who were most aware of the 'cultural-historical' factors raises the question why, this is not simply an aging process. Despite discussion of implication for tourism, there does not appear to have been interviews with tourists, and they are not residents.
Response: Thank you for your invaluable suggestion. This study focuses on city residents to explore whether landmark landscapes, as designed by urban planners, influence their sense of place identity. This inquiry aims to inform city planning and construction, foster unique city characteristics, and promote these qualities externally, thereby boosting tourism development. While landmark landscapes do pique tourists' interest, their random and contingent nature, coupled with the fact that city residents are the primary stakeholders of urban spaces, justifies our focus on residents as the primary research subjects. Future studies could extend this research to tourists, especially when a comprehensive landmark landscape becomes an integral part of tourism planning. The interaction between people and places is an ongoing, dynamic, and reciprocal process, akin to the evolution and cultivation of place identity. As society progresses, the interpretations and significance of history and culture continuously evolve, paralleling the changing physical environment and composition of landmark landscapes. These dynamics are elaborated in lines 499-506 of the Discussion section. In this study, place identity is examined as a dynamically evolving psychological construct through a cross-sectional approach. Longitudinal analysis, which we propose and outline in lines 584-589 of the Discussion section, could provide deeper insights into the causality and evolution over time, marking a promising direction for further in-depth research.
In addition to these specific points, we have also conducted a thorough review of the entire manuscript to improve its overall clarity and readability. We believe that these revisions have significantly strengthened our paper and have addressed the concerns raised by the reviewers.
We appreciate the opportunity to revise our manuscript and hope that the changes meet the approval of Sustainability. We look forward to the possibility of our work being published in your esteemed journal.
Thank you very much for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Fan Zhang
College of Landscape Architecture, Nanjing Forestry University
No. 159 Longpan Road
Suojin Village Street
Xuanwu District
Nanjing City, Jiangsu Province, 210037
China
Phone: (+86)-18913855338
Email: [email protected]
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis article has undergone significant revision, and has addressed most of the issues previously raised. The connection to tourism in particular has been made clearer, and the further engagement with the wider literature certainly makes this a much stronger article.
Comment 5 (regarding adding more nuance to the discussion and in particular offering further analysis of some of the findings and considering why particular patterns emerge) could have been addressed more. The new version does make the connection to tourism clearer, but it has not really addressed the other points. The findings (which, as mentioned in the previous round of feedback are somewhat broad) could be unpacked further, lending this article greater depth.
The point about ethics review has not been adequately addressed, a line has been added at the end, where after "Institutional Review Board Statement:" it states "There is no mention of ethics review/clearance for research with human subjects." This sentence was my comment, regarding the fact that this point was not addressed, and it is strange to see this listed as a Review Board Statement (it implies that the Review Board chastised them for not seeking review?).
To address this: it needs to be made clear, in the methodology section and here at the end, if clearance from a Review Board (or the institutional equivalent) was obtained in order to research human subjects.
Author Response
Dear Referees and Editors,
I am writing in response to the reviews of our manuscript titled " Effects of Urban Landmark Landscapes on Residents’ Place Identity: The Moderating Role of Residence Duration "(ID:2764920) submitted to Sustainability. First and foremost, I would like to express my gratitude to you for the insightful comments and suggestions. We have carefully considered and addressed each comment and have made revisions to the manuscript accordingly.
Below, I provide a point-by-point response to the comment:
Comment 1: (regarding adding more nuance to the discussion and in particular offering further analysis of some of the findings and considering why particular patterns emerge) could have been addressed more. The new version does make the connection to tourism clearer, but it has not really addressed the other points. The findings (which, as mentioned in the previous round of feedback are somewhat broad) could be unpacked further, lending this article greater depth.
Response: Thank you for your invaluable suggestion. The results of the study were further analyzed by discussing the historical-cultural importance of landmark landscapes, the impact of landscape characteristic and functions on place identity, and the moderating effect of residence time. At the same time, we read the relevant literature to further discuss the possible reasons for the results. Finally, the results of the study are used to make recommendations on landmark landscapes and urban planning and construction, with a view to improving urban characteristics, forming social consensus, and enhancing the sense of place identity through the rational construction of landmark landscapes. At the same time, we expect decision-makers to take the residents' sense of place identity into consideration in urban planning. The main changes are lines 504-534 and 572-575 in the main text.
Comment 2: About ethics review.
Response: Thank you for your invaluable suggestion. All subjects gave their informed consent for inclusion before they participated in the study. The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and the protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of Nanjing Forestry University. We explain this at 215-236 in the main text and 648-651 at the end, respectively.
We appreciate the opportunity to revise our manuscript and hope that the changes meet the approval of Sustainability. We look forward to the possibility of our work being published in your esteemed journal.
Thank you very much for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Fan Zhang
