Disparities in Urban Park Visitation Patterns among Socioeconomically Vulnerable Communities during the COVID-19 Pandemic

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review notes:

 

Investigating changes in urban park visitor behavior patterns affected by the covid-19 pandemic can be beneficial for various interest groups.

 

The reviewer's recommendations for improving the quality of the submitted study:

 

- the title of the presented study does not describe the content of the research,

- there is a need to clearly define the terms used in the study, such as vulnerable parks, vulnerable groups, etc.

- I recommend expanding the literature review with other relevant sources confirming the importance of researching visitor behavior patterns, influenced not only by the pandemic,

-Line 80; measure opinions - is it even possible to measure opinion? Change/correct statement!

- Line 82; add a specific citation of the analysis mentioned above,

-Line 101: The fact that certain groups of the population were more affected by illness/disease than others could also have changed the number of visitors to city parks among vulnerable groups! It is also necessary to point out this side of the issue. That is, if you point out that during the pandemic, the number of visits of a certain vulnerable group decreased. It is necessary to point out whether this group did not also increase due to the disease, i.e., whether this group was not more at risk within the disease. It is necessary to point this out in the introduction as well as in the discussion.

-Line 114; do not understand the given expression. Explain in more detail or support with expert knowledge that .... "due to the lack of racial diversity"!

 

- Line 120; SVI index - I recommend the authors to supplement the calculation methodology of the given index and emphasize its calculation in the text for the needs of identifying city parks based on social vulnerability!

- Line 122; complete the citation

-Line 134; To create the map, each socioeconomic indicator was normalized to adjust the data distribution (as described by Plakas et al. [26]).= from the map fig. 1. The normalization is not clear. According to the indicated approach of standardization of indicators, the values should be in the range of (0.1) or (0.100). The spatial display of indicator values is not normalized in Fig.1. The quoted source (26) mentions min-max normalization, but it seems that it is not the mentioned normalization in this case.

- Line 150; Appropriately sized parks?!? Authors should define their limitations on selecting suitable research objects more precisely.

-Inappropriate image title 2,

- Lines 160-163; Is it necessary to estimate the number of children under 10 and seniors over 80 within the given research, which does not quantify the changes in attendance caused by the pandemic? It should be pointed out that this is one of the limits of the research, but not so binding. This would affect the overall research. I would consider this approach!

-From text 3.2. Data Collection: it is unclear whether the authors used data only from KT (33% market share) or from all mobile operators to determine the number of visitors by age.

-Pictures in the study are missing sources!

- The hypotheses should be stated in the theoretical-methodical part and scientifically supported by professional sources that led to establishing the given hypotheses.

-Fig. 5 - You compare the number of visitors in the given parks, but is it correct/adequate? Do the 2 selected parks have approximately the same population catchment area? From the text of the study, we only know whether the slingshot is vulnerable or not, but we do not know what is the structure of the population of the territory adjacent to the park, what is the population density, and the number of inhabitants. All of this could have influenced the findings. From the given mobile data, it is then possible to compare changes in visitor behavior patterns only in the given park.

- Line 2019; "This study investigated the effects of the spread of COVID-19 on park equity." Really? The study did not analyze the spread of cases or diseases, only the pre-pandemic and pandemic periods.

- Line 314; unsubstantiated claim by own research! I don't think this has been proven. Perhaps the given group of residents stayed at home, in a domestic environment, and observed the conditions of social distancing... Here, I would recommend that vulnerable and non-vulnerable groups to the COVID-19 pandemic were more discussed, social status versus vulnerability to COVID-19!

 

- it is necessary to pay considerable professional attention to the discussion and to discuss the relevant findings with the results of relevant research in the given presented issue.

Author Response

• Response to Reviewer 1

We appreciate this reviewer’s comments and suggestions that allowed us to greatly improve our manuscript. Below we offer a point by point response to each of the comments by this reviewer.

 

1. The title of the presented study does not describe the content of the research,

Response 1

Thank you for your valuable feedback. We agree that the original title did not adequately convey the specific focus of the study on socioeconomic disparities in park visitation during the COVID-19 pandemic. We have revised the title to 'Disparities in Urban Park Visitation Patterns Among Socio-Economically Vulnerable Communities During the COVID-19 Pandemic,' which we believe more accurately reflects the study's emphasis on understanding how different socioeconomic groups were affected in their use of urban parks during this period. This revised title aligns more closely with the study's objectives and findings, highlighting the focus on vulnerable communities and the pandemic's impact on their park visitation patterns

2. There is a need to clearly define the terms used in the study, such as vulnerable parks, vulnerable groups, etc.

Response 2

Thank you for your insightful feedback regarding the clarity of terms used in the study. In response to your suggestion, We have revised the introduction of the paper to include a more precise definition of 'socio-economic vulnerability.' This term now specifically refers to communities or groups that are at a higher risk of adverse socio-economic impacts due to factors such as lower income, limited access to resources, or other socio-economic disadvantages. These factors are critical in understanding the disparities in park visitation patterns, especially during challenging times like the COVID-19 pandemic. The revised introduction now provides a detailed explanation of this term, ensuring that the study’s context and findings are clearly understood by the readers. We believe this revision addresses your concern and adds to the overall clarity and depth of the study.

3. I recommend expanding the literature review with other relevant sources confirming the importance of researching visitor behavior patterns, influenced not only by the pandemic,

Response 3

Thank you for your constructive feedback regarding the scope of the literature review. In response to your suggestion, We have expanded the literature review to include additional research that examines visitor behavior patterns in urban green spaces influenced by factors other than the COVID-19 pandemic. This new paragraph, added to the literature review, highlights the importance of various other elements such as urban development, demographic changes, and environmental factors in shaping park visitation patterns. These aspects are crucial for a comprehensive understanding of how and why people use urban parks, beyond the specific context of the pandemic. By incorporating these broader considerations, the literature review now presents a more holistic view of the factors influencing visitor behavior in urban green spaces. This addition aligns with the aim of the study to provide a nuanced understanding of park visitation patterns, considering both pandemic-related and other influential factors. We believe this enhancement addresses your recommendation and enriches the contextual background of the research.

4. Line 80; measure opinions - is it even possible to measure opinion? Change/correct statement!

Response 4

Thank you for pointing out the need for clarity in my statement regarding the capabilities of big data analysis. You are correct that 'measuring opinions' might imply a direct assessment, which is not typically feasible with big data. Therefore, we have revised the sentence to reflect more accurately the potential of big data in inferring user preferences and perceptions. The revised sentence now reads: 'With the advent of big data analysis, researchers can now gather substantial data to understand daily experiences and infer user preferences and perceptions regarding urban parks.' This modification better represents the indirect method of understanding park users' attitudes through analysis of large datasets, such as social media activity and mobile location data. We believe this change addresses your concern and accurately describes the capabilities of big data analysis in urban park studies.

5. Line 82; add a specific citation of the analysis mentioned above,

Response 5

Thank you for your valuable feedback requesting a specific citation for the use of Google's Community Mobility Report. We have revised the sentence to include a direct reference to a study that exemplifies this usage. The sentence now reads: ‘For instance, the Community Mobility Report by Google was used in several studies, such as Sulyok and Walker [18], to track the number of visitors in multiple parks.’ This addition provides a clear example of how the Google Mobility Report has been utilized in research, ensuring that the citation directly aligns with the statement. We believe this revision adequately addresses your request for a more specific citation.

6. Line 101: The fact that certain groups of the population were more affected by illness/disease than others could also have changed the number of visitors to city parks among vulnerable groups! It is also necessary to point out this side of the issue. That is, if you point out that during the pandemic, the number of visits of a certain vulnerable group decreased. It is necessary to point out whether this group did not also increase due to the disease, i.e., whether this group was not more at risk within the disease. It is necessary to point this out in the introduction as well as in the discussion.

Response 6

Thank you for your insightful observation regarding the impact of health risks on park visitation among vulnerable groups during the COVID-19 pandemic. Your point is well-taken that the increased susceptibility of certain populations to illness could have significantly influenced their behavior, including their use of city parks. To address this, We included in both the introduction and discussion sections of the paper a consideration of how health risks, particularly in vulnerable groups, may have affected their park visitation patterns

In the discussion section, we delved deeper into analyzing how the increased health risks faced by these groups, as a result of the pandemic, might have contributed to a decrease in their park visits. This will include examining available data and literature on the incidence of COVID-19 in these groups and correlating it with changes in park visitation patterns. By doing so, we aimed to provide a more nuanced understanding of the factors influencing park usage among different socioeconomic and demographic groups during the pandemic.

7. Line 114; do not understand the given expression. Explain in more detail or support with expert knowledge that .... "due to the lack of racial diversity"!

Response 7

Thank you for your feedback requesting further explanation of the statement regarding the impact of limited racial diversity on the identification of socially vulnerable populations in South Korea. We understand the need for clarity in this aspect of the study. In the context of South Korea, the concept of social vulnerability is often more closely associated with socioeconomic factors than racial diversity, which is a more prominent factor in many Western countries. This is due to South Korea's relatively homogenous racial composition compared to countries with more racial and ethnic diversity.

In many studies conducted in racially diverse countries, racial and ethnic factors play a significant role in determining social vulnerability. However, in South Korea, where the population is predominantly of a single ethnic group (Korean), social vulnerability is more commonly assessed through socioeconomic indicators such as income level, employment status, and access to social services. This difference in demographic composition means that the identification of socially vulnerable groups in South Korea might focus more on economic and social factors rather than racial or ethnic diversity.

Therefore, when examining park visitation patterns in the South Korean context, the study emphasizes socioeconomic vulnerability as the primary factor for analysis. This approach aligns with the demographic characteristics of the region and provides a more accurate reflection of the factors influencing park visitation among different social groups in South Korea.

We revised the manuscript to include this expanded explanation, providing a clearer understanding of the rationale behind focusing on socioeconomic factors as opposed to racial diversity in the South Korean context. This should address your concern and enhance the manuscript's clarity regarding the identification of socially vulnerable populations in this specific geographical and cultural setting.

8. Line 120; SVI index - We recommend the authors to supplement the calculation methodology of the given index and emphasize its calculation in the text for the needs of identifying city parks based on social vulnerability!

Response 8

Thank you for your valuable comment regarding the need to elaborate on the calculation methodology of the Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) and its application in identifying city parks based on social vulnerability. In response to your suggestion, we have supplemented the manuscript with a detailed explanation of the SVI calculation. The SVI values were mapped onto a map for a visual representation of social vulnerability across different areas. During the mapping process, it was necessary to normalize each indicator within the SVI to ensure a consistent and meaningful comparison across different regions.

To provide clarity and transparency in our methodology, we have now included the normalization formula used in this process in the main text. This addition will help readers understand how each component of the SVI was standardized and how these normalized values contribute to the overall assessment of social vulnerability in relation to city park accessibility. We believe this enhancement to the manuscript not only responds to your recommendation but also enriches the reader's comprehension of our approach to identifying city parks based on social vulnerability

9. Line 122; complete the citation

Response 9

Thank you for pointing out the incomplete citation. We have reviewed the manuscript and ensured that all citations are now complete and accurately referenced. This update will aid in providing thorough and precise information for further reading and verification.

 

10. Line 134; To create the map, each socioeconomic indicator was normalized to adjust the data distribution (as described by Plakas et al. [26]).= from the map fig. 1. The normalization is not clear. According to the indicated approach of standardization of indicators, the values should be in the range of (0.1) or (0.100). The spatial display of indicator values is not normalized in Fig.1. The quoted source (26) mentions min-max normalization, but it seems that it is not the mentioned normalization in this case.

Response 10

Thank you for your insightful comment regarding the normalization process of socioeconomic indicators used in our study. You are correct in pointing out that, according to the min-max normalization method as mentioned in Plakas et al. [26], the values should indeed range between 0 and 1 (or 0% and 100%). It appears that the normalization process was not adequately reflected in the spatial display of indicator values in Figure 1. To rectify this, we have revised the normalization process to strictly adhere to the min-max normalization method, ensuring that all values now appropriately range from 0 to 1. Additionally, Figure 1 has been updated to accurately represent these normalized values, providing a clearer and more accurate visualization of the socioeconomic indicators across different areas. we appreciate your attention to this detail, and we have made these changes to ensure the methodology and its representation in the study are both accurate and consistent with the cited source.

11. Line 150; Appropriately sized parks?!? Authors should define their limitations on selecting suitable research objects more precisely.

Response 11

Thank you for your feedback regarding the clarity in the selection criteria of parks for our study. We realize that the term 'appropriately sized parks' was vague and could lead to misunderstandings. To address this, we have revised the sentence to clearly state that 'Parks with comparable sizes were selected for analysis from both vulnerable and non-vulnerable communities...' This revision specifies that the chosen parks, Seoul Forest and North Seoul Dream Forest, were selected based on their similar spatial dimensions and amenities, which makes them suitable for a comparative analysis. This change in phrasing eliminates the ambiguity of the original term and clearly conveys the basis on which these parks were selected, ensuring a more precise and transparent explanation of our methodology. We believe this modification adequately addresses your concern and enhances the clarity of the selection criteria used in our study.

12. Inappropriate image title 2,

Response 12

Thank you for your feedback regarding the title of Figure 2. Upon review, we agree that the original title did not adequately convey the specific focus of the figure. The figure is intended to illustrate the spatial distribution of hotspots and coldspots with an emphasis on Seoul Forest and Dream Forest within the study area. Consequently, we have revised the title to 'Spatial Distribution of Hotspots and Coldspots highlighting Seoul Forest and Dream Forest.'

 

13. lines 160-163; Is it necessary to estimate the number of children under 10 and seniors over 80 within the given research, which does not quantify the changes in attendance caused by the pandemic? It should be pointed out that this is one of the limits of the research, but not so binding. This would affect the overall research. I would consider this approach!

Response 13

Thank you for your comment regarding the inclusion of children under 10 and seniors over 80 in our research. We appreciate your concern about the potential underrepresentation of these age groups. However, we would like to clarify that in our study, these age groups were indeed considered. The key point we wish to convey is that we did not modify the data ourselves. Instead, the telecom data we used had already been adjusted by the telecom company, utilizing official statistics from the National Statistical Office for individuals under 10 and over 80 years old. This pre-adjusted data ensured that our analysis incorporated a comprehensive and accurate representation of park visitation patterns across all age demographics. We relied on this methodology to overcome the limitations of direct mobile data collection and ensure inclusivity in our study.

14. from text 3.2. Data Collection: it is unclear whether the authors used data only from KT (33% market share) or from all mobile operators to determine the number of visitors by age.

Response 14

Thank you for your query regarding the data collection in our study. We exclusively utilized data from KT, which was accessible as open data through a national agreement. During our research period, KT was the telecom provider designated for this data-sharing initiative. Although KT has a market share of 33%, their data is adjusted in collaboration with the National Statistical Office to represent the entire South Korean population. This adjustment is premised on the understanding that there is no significant difference in usage patterns among subscribers of different telecom operators. Consequently, KT's data is widely used in research for its ability to reliably represent broader population trends. We chose this data source for its comprehensiveness and relevance to our study objectives.

15. Pictures in the study are missing sources!

Response 15

Thank you for pointing out the missing sources for the images in the study. We have now included proper citations for the photographs of Dream Forest and Seoul Forest, directly under the respective figures.

 

16. The hypotheses should be stated in the theoretical-methodical part and scientifically supported by professional sources that led to establishing the given hypotheses.

Response 16

Thank you for your valuable suggestion to articulate the research questions of our study in the form of hypotheses. In response to your feedback, we have reformulated the research questions into two clear hypotheses. Hypothesis 1 (H1) posits that park usage patterns in vulnerable communities have significantly altered during the COVID-19 pandemic. Hypothesis 2 (H2) proposes that there are significant differences between the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on different socioeconomic communities, especially concerning vulnerable populations such as seniors. These hypotheses are now clearly stated in the theoretical-methodical section of the paper and are supported by relevant literature, ensuring they are well-grounded in the context of existing research. This revision strengthens the structure and clarity of the study's research framework.

17. Fig. 5 - You compare the number of visitors in the given parks, but is it correct/adequate? Do the 2 selected parks have approximately the same population catchment area? From the text of the study, we only know whether the slingshot is vulnerable or not, but we do not know what is the structure of the population of the territory adjacent to the park, what is the population density, and the number of inhabitants. All of this could have influenced the findings. From the given mobile data, it is then possible to compare changes in visitor behavior patterns only in the given park.

Response 17

Thank you for your insightful comment regarding the comparison of visitor numbers in the selected parks. We understand your concerns about the influence of various factors on park visitation, such as the population of the surrounding area and local context differences. Indeed, these are important considerations, as they can significantly impact park usage patterns.

However, it is essential to recognize that parks, unlike controlled experimental environments, vary naturally in terms of visitor numbers and patterns. The challenge in urban park studies is that it is virtually impossible to find two parks that are exactly alike in every aspect, including population catchment areas. Our approach in this study was to select parks that are comparable in terms of size and facilities and then to focus on how park usage has changed in these parks since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. By examining the changes in visitation patterns and the slope of these changes in the graphs, we aimed to understand the pandemic's impact more accurately.

While acknowledging the limitations that come with not having detailed demographic data for the areas surrounding the parks, we believe that comparing the changes in usage patterns within the same park before and after the pandemic's onset is the most effective way to assess the COVID-19 impact. This approach allows us to draw insights into how the pandemic has affected park visitation, even though it may not account for every variable that could influence park use.

18. Line 2019; "This study investigated the effects of the spread of COVID-19 on park equity." Really? The study did not analyze the spread of cases or diseases, only the pre-pandemic and pandemic periods.

Response 18

Thank you for your comment and for the opportunity to clarify the scope of our study. The aim of our research was not to analyze the spread of COVID-19 cases or diseases per se, but rather to examine how the pandemic's progression, and the associated psychological impacts, have affected park usage, especially in vulnerable communities. Our focus was on the behavioral changes in park visitation due to perceived risks of infection or the fear of contracting COVID-19, rather than on the actual disease spread. Thus, the study highlights how the pandemic has led to a reduction in park usage in vulnerable areas, demonstrating an impact on park equity during the pandemic. This clarification will be made in the study to accurately represent the research's focus and findings.

 

19. Line 314; unsubstantiated claim by own research! I don't think this has been proven. Perhaps the given group of residents stayed at home, in a domestic environment, and observed the conditions of social distancing... Here, I would recommend that vulnerable and non-vulnerable groups to the COVID-19 pandemic were more discussed, social status versus vulnerability to COVID-19! It is necessary to pay considerable professional attention to the discussion and to discuss the relevant findings with the results of relevant research in the given presented issue.

Response 19

Thank you for your insightful feedback. We understand your concerns about the need to substantiate the claims made in our study. In response to your suggestion, we have expanded the discussion to more comprehensively address the differences between vulnerable and non-vulnerable groups in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. This includes integrating findings from global contexts, such as the challenges faced by underinsured and low-wage earners in the U.S., to illustrate how socio-economic factors can influence responses to public health crises. While our study does not directly prove that residents stayed at home, the observed decrease in park visitation in vulnerable communities over time, compared to the consistent pattern in non-vulnerable communities, suggests socio-economic disparities in the ability to adhere to social distancing measures. We have made efforts to discuss these findings in relation to relevant research, thereby addressing your concerns and providing a more rounded analysis of the issue.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

１）A hypothesis or a reality about the relationship between the number of visits to the park and COVID19 needs to be added to the main text.

２）Although the analysis was performed with ANOVA, we recommend further validation with methods other than ANOVA.

Author Response

• Response to Reviewer 2

We appreciate this reviewer’s comments and suggestions that allowed us to greatly improve our manuscript. Below we offer a point by point response to each of the comments by this reviewer.

 

1. A hypothesis or a reality about the relationship between the number of visits to the park and COVID19 needs to be added to the main text.

Response 1

Thank you for your suggestion. In response, we have added a section to the introduction of the manuscript that discusses the relationship between park visitation numbers and COVID-19. This addition explores whether the observed trends represent a hypothesis or a reality, providing a clearer context for the study's focus and findings.

 

2. Although the analysis was performed with ANOVA, we recommend further validation with methods other than ANOVA.

Response 2

Thank you for your recommendation to consider further validation methods beyond ANOVA for our analysis. In our study, we specifically focused on the variables 'time' and 'social vulnerability' to examine changes in urban park usage among socially vulnerable populations. We thoroughly evaluated various analytical methods. Given the nature of our data and the objectives of our research, we found that visually interpreting the results would be the best to show our results. After careful consideration, we concluded that RM-ANOVA (a two-way mixed design) was the most suitable approach for our analysis, both in terms of providing clear statistical insights and aligning with our study's goals. We believe that this method aptly addresses the complexities of our data and effectively captures the nuances of the relationship we aimed to investigate. However, we acknowledge your suggestion and will consider exploring additional validation methods in future research to further strengthen our findings.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Your study delves into compelling issues regarding the role of urban parks during the COVID-19 pandemic, with a specific focus on addressing vulnerability and social inequity in park visitation within South Korea through urban data analysis. The selection of study sites is apt, given the homogeneity in size and design type between the two parks. Moreover, the clarity of data collection and visualization enhances the comprehensibility of the urban data under examination.

 

However, the original observations in the discussion section appear to be somewhat lacking and exhibit a degree of incoherence. For instance, in lines 309-315, you observed a decrease in park visitation in vulnerable communities over time as the pandemic persisted, while non-vulnerable communities demonstrated a consistent pattern of maintaining social distance. The subsequent interpretation, suggesting that "low-income communities may face challenges in adhering to social distancing policies during a pandemic," requires substantiation through the presentation of the dataset and relevant literature pertaining to the Korean social distancing policy during the pandemic in both vulnerable and non-vulnerable communities.

 

Furthermore, the interpretation presented in lines 327-343, asserting that elderly visitors in non-vulnerable communities exhibit a greater desire for urban park experiences, while the higher risk of COVID-19 infection in vulnerable community limits park visitation, lacks a clear foundation. The observation and interpretations appear to be a logical leap. In my analysis, based on the visualization of your dataset, the high park visitation in vulnerable communities seems to be a temporary phenomenon during the early stages of COVID-19, when stringent social distancing regulations limited people's long-distance movement, leading them to visit easily accessible neighborhood urban parks.

 

Consequently, a revision of your manuscript is necessary, involving a more thorough observation and interpretation of your present data visualization, along with the incorporation of relevant data and literature to support your assertions.

 

Author Response

• Response to Reviewer 3

We appreciate this reviewer’s comments and suggestions that allowed us to greatly improve our manuscript. Below we offer a point by point response to each of the comments by this reviewer.

 

1. Your study delves into compelling issues regarding the role of urban parks during the COVID-19 pandemic, with a specific focus on addressing vulnerability and social inequity in park visitation within South Korea through urban data analysis. The selection of study sites is apt, given the homogeneity in size and design type between the two parks. Moreover, the clarity of data collection and visualization enhances the comprehensibility of the urban data under examination.

However, the original observations in the discussion section appear to be somewhat lacking and exhibit a degree of incoherence. For instance, in lines 309-315, you observed a decrease in park visitation in vulnerable communities over time as the pandemic persisted, while non-vulnerable communities demonstrated a consistent pattern of maintaining social distance. The subsequent interpretation, suggesting that "low-income communities may face challenges in adhering to social distancing policies during a pandemic," requires substantiation through the presentation of the dataset and relevant literature pertaining to the Korean social distancing policy during the pandemic in both vulnerable and non-vulnerable communities.

Response 1

Thank you for your valuable feedback on the discussion section of our study. In light of your suggestion, rather than specifically focusing on the Korean context, we have revised the discussion to emphasize a global perspective on the challenges faced by socially vulnerable groups during the coronavirus pandemic. This revision draws on international examples and literature that illustrate the heightened difficulties these groups encounter in adhering to public health measures. By doing so, we aim to establish a broader context for understanding our observations regarding park visitation patterns. The revised discussion now includes references to studies that demonstrate the disproportionate impact of the pandemic on low-income and underinsured populations, which supports our findings of varied responses to social distancing policies among different socio-economic groups. This approach ensures that our conclusions are in line with global trends and previous research, providing a more comprehensive and contextualized analysis of the impact of COVID-19 on public health across diverse communities.

 

2. Furthermore, the interpretation presented in lines 327-343, asserting that elderly visitors in non-vulnerable communities exhibit a greater desire for urban park experiences, while the higher risk of COVID-19 infection in vulnerable community limits park visitation, lacks a clear foundation. The observation and interpretations appear to be a logical leap. In my analysis, based on the visualization of your dataset, the high park visitation in vulnerable communities seems to be a temporary phenomenon during the early stages of COVID-19, when stringent social distancing regulations limited people's long-distance movement, leading them to visit easily accessible neighborhood urban parks.

Response 2

Thank you for your insightful comment regarding the interpretation of elderly visitors' park visitation patterns. Your analysis, focusing on the dataset visualization, provided a valuable perspective that led me to reconsider my initial interpretation. We have revised the discussion to reflect your suggestion that the high park visitation in vulnerable communities during the early stages of COVID-19 might have been a temporary phenomenon. This change aligns with the idea that stringent social distancing measures limited people's mobility, influencing them to visit more accessible neighborhood parks. This revised interpretation provides a more grounded explanation of the observed patterns, avoiding any logical leaps and ensuring that our conclusions are more closely tied to the dataset and its visual representation. We appreciate your guidance in enhancing the accuracy and coherence of our study's findings.

 

3. Consequently, a revision of your manuscript is necessary, involving a more thorough observation and interpretation of your present data visualization, along with the incorporation of relevant data and literature to support your assertions.

Response 3

Thank you for your feedback. We have thoroughly revised the manuscript to enhance the observation and interpretation of our data, and have incorporated relevant literature to support our assertions. These revisions aim to strengthen the coherence and depth of our study. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I thank the authors for recognizing and incorporating the present study's ambiguities. I am satisfied with the revision of the study.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I recommend this manuscript to be published in present form.