Biodiversity of Accessible Greenspace for Vulnerable Population Groups: Citizen Science Data Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper explores the issue of green space equity for vulnerable population groups by incorporating biodiversity indicators, which is crucial for future green space planning. Although the paper is somewhat verbose, it is a very comprehensive study. The authors not only present their research findings but also provide a detailed review of the research on green space equity, including its content and methods, which I believe is very necessary. The introduction of biodiversity indicators, in particular, offers new directions and representations of results in the study of green space equity. I believe it aligns well with the journal's requirements and recommend it for publication. However, there are still some minor issues to address. Firstly, the statistical unit of the study, i.e., the scale of analysis, must be clearly stated. Additionally, for the various indicators of green space, it is important to specify the differential characteristics of these indicators for different vulnerable population groups, particularly identifying the main influencing indicators. Furthermore, since the GWR model is employed, why also use the OLS model? In fact, the GWR model is clearly superior to the OLS model in spatial analysis. Compared to the OLS model, I would recommend using the Random Forest model to explore the driving effects of the indicators and to quantify the magnitude of these effects. Lastly, please provide more suggestions in the discussion regarding future green space planning.

Author Response

This paper explores the issue of green space equity for vulnerable population groups by incorporating biodiversity indicators, which is crucial for future green space planning. Although the paper is somewhat verbose, it is a very comprehensive study. The authors not only present their research findings but also provide a detailed review of the research on green space equity, including its content and methods, which I believe is very necessary. The introduction of biodiversity indicators, in particular, offers new directions and representations of results in the study of green space equity. I believe it aligns well with the journal's requirements and recommend it for publication.

• Thank you!

However, there are still some minor issues to address. Firstly, the statistical unit of the study, i.e., the scale of analysis, must be clearly stated.

• The unit of the study is the census tract. To help the international readers, we added the definition: “All spatial data was rescaled/aggregated to the US census tracts, designed to be homogeneous regarding population socio-economic status and housing around 4,000 residents. “

Additionally, for the various indicators of green space, it is important to specify the differential characteristics of these indicators for different vulnerable population groups, particularly identifying the main influencing indicators.

• We extended the first paragraph in 5.1 to reflect this point.

“In essence, census blocks with a higher proportion of vulnerable populations tend to exhibit improved accessibility to greenspaces in terms of distance. This trend is particularly noticeable for vulnerabilities associated with socioeconomic status and racial minorities, as opposed to those linked to household characteristics and housing types. Notably, this correlation is negligible in both urban clusters and rural settings. We did not notice fundamental differences in either biodiversity indices, both of which have very similar correlations with measures of population vulnerability; for brevity, we selected the Shannon index for further analysis. “

Furthermore, since the GWR model is employed, why also use the OLS model? In fact, the GWR model is clearly superior to the OLS model in spatial analysis.  Compared to the OLS model, I would recommend using the Random Forest model to explore the driving effects of the indicators and to quantify the magnitude of these effects.

• OLS analysis is an obligatory component of GWR. Per ESRI: “You should always begin regression analysis with Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression. First find a properly specified OLS model. Then use the same explanatory variables to run GWR (excluding any dummy explanatory variables representing different spatial regimes).” https://pro.arcgis.com/en/pro-app/latest/tool-reference/spatial-statistics/geographically-weighted-regression.htm
• Random Forest is an interesting suggestion. Still, we must include OLS due to the OLS requirement, so we stay with the current design.

Lastly, please provide more suggestions in the discussion regarding future green space planning.

• Included in Discussion: “Specifically, the greenspace development goal formulated in terms of the aerial units ap-parently misses the target: there are many small informal vegetated spaces that are missed by the top-down cartography. What is lacking, especially in vulnerable communities, is a quality greenspace, rich in variable flora and fauna. “

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to Sustainability. I have provided comments and feedback on the manuscript, which I encourage you to address during your revision process. Please consider incorporating these suggestions to improve the overall quality of your submission.

 

The manuscript titled "Biodiversity of Accessible Greenspace for Vulnerable Population Groups: Citizen Science Data Analysis" explores the connections between social vulnerability, greenspace accessibility, and biodiversity in urban areas. While the article's structure is relatively sound, the language requires greater cohesion, and the logic could be more clearly organized to enhance understanding of the research questions. In the discussion, the answers to the research questions are not sufficiently addressed. Although the relevant topics are summarized, the discussion lacks a clear, summative evaluation of the findings.

 

Abstract

The abstract can be strengthened by including specific details about the significance of the study’s findings and the importance of conducting this research. These details will help readers quickly understand the study's relevance. Additionally, the abstract should provide a clear overview of the key issues addressed in the paper. To further enhance clarity and readability, it is recommended to use subheadings in the abstract section, allowing readers to navigate the core elements of the study more easily.

 

Results and discussion

The findings lack critical interpretation, and the section would benefit from a more in-depth discussion of their significance and practical implications. Expanding on how the results contribute to the field and their real-world applications would strengthen the overall analysis.

 

Conclusion

The conclusions section should provide specific recommendations derived from the study's findings and explicitly address the study's limitations. Doing so will not only enhance the practical relevance of the research but also offer a more balanced perspective on the results.

Author Response

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to Sustainability. I have provided comments and feedback on the manuscript, which I encourage you to address during your revision process. Please consider incorporating these suggestions to improve the overall quality of your submission.

• Thank you!

 The manuscript titled "Biodiversity of Accessible Greenspace for Vulnerable Population Groups: Citizen Science Data Analysis" explores the connections between social vulnerability, greenspace accessibility, and biodiversity in urban areas. While the article's structure is relatively sound, the language requires greater cohesion, and the logic could be more clearly organized to enhance understanding of the research questions. In the discussion, the answers to the research questions are not sufficiently addressed. Although the relevant topics are summarized, the discussion lacks a clear, summative evaluation of the findings.

• I hope the reviewed manuscript adequately addresses this concern.

The abstract can be strengthened by including specific details about the significance of the study’s findings and the importance of conducting this research. These details will help readers quickly understand the study's relevance. Additionally, the abstract should provide a clear overview of the key issues addressed in the paper. To further enhance clarity and readability, it is recommended to use subheadings in the abstract section, allowing readers to navigate the core elements of the study more easily.

• Journal’s requirements for the Abstract are as follows: “The abstract should be a total of about 200 words maximum. The abstract should be a single paragraph and should follow the style of structured abstracts, but without headings: 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 be an objective representation of the article: it must not contain results which are not presented and substantiated in the main text and should not exaggerate the main conclusions.”

Our abstract strictly follows these requirements:

Background: Accessible greenspace biodiversity is a crucial element for human wellbeing.

Methods: In this study, we explore the connection between social vulnerability, accessibility to greenspaces, and biodiversity in urban areas. To achieve this, we utilize citizen-science data on public greenspace and species identification.

Results: Our findings reveal that areas with high population vulnerability generally have shorter distances to greenspaces. This unexpected result can be attributed to the inclusion of informal greenspaces in our analysis. However, the biodiversity of greenspaces accessible to vulnerable communities tends to be lower. This relationship varies across regions, with some areas showing improved access to high biodiversity spaces for vulnerable populations. This positive outcome can be attributed to revegetation efforts.

Discussion: Our study emphasizes the significance of considering biodi-versity when assessing greenspace accessibility. The utilization of grassroots citizen science data enhances our understanding of greenspace quality. These findings hold significant implications for addressing racial and socioeconomic disparities in greenspace accessibility.

 Please notice that subsections, study importance, and significance cannot be included in the Abstracts according to the Journal’s standard. 

 

Results and discussion

The findings lack critical interpretation, and the section would benefit from a more in-depth discussion of their significance and practical implications. Expanding on how the results contribute to the field and their real-world applications would strengthen the overall analysis.

This is a good point. We included the following real-world implications in the Conclusion section:

“Specifically, the greenspace development goal formulated in terms of the aerial units apparently misses the target: there are many small informal vegetated spaces that are missed by the top-down cartography. What is lacking, especially in vulnerable communities, is a quality greenspace rich in variable flora and fauna.  “

Please notice that we have a very substantial discussion of the contribution to the field in the Discussion section:

Contribution to the literature on greenspace accessibility:

“The prevailing findings within the existing literature suggest that neighborhoods facing socio-economic disadvantages generally exhibit poorer greenspace accessibility (Comber et al., 2008, Gobster, 2002, Richardson et al., 2010). Similar trends were observed for racial minorities (Boone et al., 2009, Wolch et al., 2005, Dai 2011) and other vulnerable groups. In contrast to these results, we found that, in general, areas with higher population vulnerability tend to have shorter distances to greenspaces. …”

 

Contribution to understanding of biodiversity in accessible areas:

“The benefits of higher greenspace accessibility are however reversed when biodiver-sity is taken into account. The quality of accessible greenspaces for vulnerable populations tends to be inferior compared to more advantaged communities. This phenomenon is more conspicuous in urban areas and, to a lesser extent, in urban cluster locations. The GWR model shows that in both urban and rural areas, approximately 35% of Shannon biodiver-sity is explained by only two variables: the percentage of green area in a census block and the population vulnerability index.”

 

Contribution to socio-economic differences in access to species-rich areas:

“…  greenspaces accessible to vulnerable groups living in urban environments tend to have lower biodiversity (and, consequently, lower quality)… “

Observations on city depopulation's effect on biodiversity:

“… The largest contiguous region where higher vulnerability coin-cides with higher biodiversity is the Detroit urban area. We attribute this phenomenon to the revegetation of depopulated areas of the city. The number of people living in Detroit is only one-third of its 1950 population. Multiple vacant blocks of the city were overtaken by pioneer flora. This unintended revegetation process, as well as intentional efforts on city "rewilding," evidently results in improved access to quality greenspaces for otherwise vulnerable population groups. While Detroit is the most extreme example of depopulation leading to improved biodiversity, this effect has been reported for multiple US cities.”

Observations on vulnerable rural populations:

“ In rural areas, the general tendency for higher vulnerability of the population to be associated with lower greenspace becomes less recognizable. GWR reveals that while in the eastern part of the country, this pattern is still conserved, it is frequently reversed west of the 100° longitude. The 100° longitude roughly defines the boundary between the non-irrigated agriculture of the eastern part of the country and the irrigation-necessary American West. Accordingly, the West rural areas include low-productive lands under animal husbandry with very low population density. This is also where the largest areas under protection are located. A relatively low human footprint is conducive to a higher percentage of vulnerable rural population living in areas with high biodiversity.”

We also provide an important limitation on study results:

“While our results do show that greenspaces accessible to vulnerable groups tend to be of lower quality in terms of biodiversity, one should exercise a certain degree of caution when evaluating the impact of this disadvantage on human well-being. As Dallimer et al. (2012) have reported, greenspace visitors have limited ability to evaluate greenspace bio-diversity. Their study found that perceived rather than objective species richness positively affects human well-being measures (Aerts et al., 2018). Gonçalves at al. (2021) noted that people access biodiversity based on visual cues, such as the forms of tree leaves, suggest-ing important implications for city planning. In this respect, citizen-science observations such as iNaturalist data seem to have an advantage due to its inherent "human gaze" bias towards species perceived as "important." Di Cecco et al. (2021) found that the majority of iNaturalist contributors focused on “common and diverse groups of terrestrial organisms that are difficult to miss … The taxonomic groups that were most well documented tended to be easy to photograph, abundant (e.g., plants and insects), or especially interesting to humans (e.g., butterflies and birds).” Incidentally, the most observed iNaturalist species are Monarch butterfly, honeybee, and mallard duck.

“

 

Conclusion

The conclusions section should provide specific recommendations derived from the study's findings and explicitly address the study's limitations. Doing so will not only enhance the practical relevance of the research but also offer a more balanced perspective on the results.

• Study limitations are included in Discussion (please see above). We updated Conclusions section with a note on practical relevance (see above). Please notice that the entire section is optional in this journal and there are specific requirements on its format.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article submitted for review constitutes an important contribution to research on the availability of green areas, especially for vulnerable population groups.

The article is interesting and based on careful research. The important research findings have been effectively highlighted and described, contributing to the advancement of knowledge. The structure of the article is appropriate. The own research was preceded by an extensive literature review, the methodology was described in detail, and the results from the own research were compared in a discussion with the research of other researchers, which allowed to highlight both common features and a different perspective on the examined problem.

After reading the paper, I have comments and suggestions to improve the paper as follows:

- Conclusions should be more responsive to the results obtained.

- Figure A1 is difficult to read.

Author Response

The article submitted for review constitutes an important contribution to research on the availability of green areas, especially for vulnerable population groups.

The article is interesting and based on careful research. The important research findings have been effectively highlighted and described, contributing to the advancement of knowledge. The structure of the article is appropriate. The own research was preceded by an extensive literature review, the methodology was described in detail, and the results from the own research were compared in a discussion with the research of other researchers, which allowed to highlight both common features and a different perspective on the examined problem.

• Thank you!

After reading the paper, I have comments and suggestions to improve the paper as follows:

Conclusions should be more responsive to the results obtained.

• We extended the section.

Figure A1 is difficult to read.

• We replaced the figure to provide more details.