Predicting Community Support for Park Development Using Social Exchange Theory

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study focused on the importance of community support as a decisive factor in sustainable park planning and management. The hypothesis tested on the reliable process and method and suggested significant findings.

Meanwhile, as author mentioned, this study was conducted in an urban community of one site in South Korea, and thus the findings may not fully represent the diversity of community structures or governance systems across different contexts.

Therefore, we hope that through more expanded research, more advanced results can be proposed compared to existing research.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely appreciate your thoughtful review and the constructive comments provided regarding our manuscript. Below, we address your observations in detail.

Comment: General Appreciation of the Study

 

Reviewer Comment: "This study focused on the importance of community support as a decisive factor in sustainable park planning and management. The hypothesis tested the reliable process and method and suggested significant findings."

 

Response: Thank you for your positive evaluation and for recognizing the importance of the topic and the reliability of our methodology. Your acknowledgment motivates us to further refine and expand our work.

 

 

Comment: Limitation of Research Scope

Reviewer Comment: "As author mentioned, this study was conducted in an urban community of one site in South Korea, and thus the findings may not fully represent the diversity of community structures or governance systems across different contexts.“

 

Response: We acknowledge this limitation and appreciate your emphasis on the need for broader applicability. As noted in the manuscript, this study's findings are contextualized within the unique socio-cultural and governance framework of South Korea. We have included this limitation in the "Study Limitation and Future Research Direction" section, emphasizing the importance of expanding the research to diverse socio-cultural and governance contexts. This will allow for a more comprehensive understanding of how community dynamics vary across different settings.

 

Comment: Recommendation for Future Research

Reviewer Comment: "Therefore, we hope that through more expanded research, more advanced results can be proposed compared to existing research.“

 

Response: We appreciate your suggestion for future research. Building on the current study, we plan to explore cross-regional and cross-national analyses to examine how community support mechanisms for park development differ under various governance and socio-economic systems. This approach will enable the development of a more generalized framework for sustainable park planning and management. Additionally, we have highlighted this recommendation in the revised manuscript to reflect your valuable input.

 

Once again, we are grateful for your constructive feedback, which has helped enhance the clarity and direction of our research. Please let us know if there are any additional points we should address.

Sincerely,

Eunmie Jang and Moohan Kim

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study explores the impact of community attachment, perceived benefits, and perceived costs on community support for urban park development through the lens of Social Exchange Theory (SET). Using Structural Equation Modeling (SEM), the study analyzes the driving factors of community support. The results suggest that community attachment and perceived benefits are significant factors in enhancing community support, while perceived costs do not have a significant effect. However, there are several major issues in this study, and therefore, I recommend major revisions.

1.       The introduction briefly outlines the background of park development and community support but is somewhat vague in articulating the research problem, especially in terms of the importance of community support for park development projects. The research problem does not clearly highlight the limitations of existing literature or explain "why this issue has not been addressed in the current research." This issue is not effectively addressed in the literature review either. Although the literature review mentions the application of SET in various fields, it lacks an in-depth discussion of its application in the field of "park development." The cited literature is more focused on social interaction, tourism, and community development, with little discussion on how SET explains community support in the context of park development.

2.       In order to increase the impact of the study, it is recommended that authors use 1-2 sentences in the first part to link the study to nature-based solutions, which have been relatively hot in the field recently, by referring to the following paper (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.172219; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2017.11.038).

3.       The study is framed around SET, but the definitions of key variables such as "community attachment," "perceived benefits," and "perceived costs" are not clearly presented. There is also a lack of discussion on how these variables relate to existing empirical research. In particular, the concepts of "perceived benefits" and "perceived costs" are not clearly explained in terms of their specific application in park development research.

4.       Although Figure 1 presents the five hypotheses proposed in this study, the introduction does not clearly describe the content and background of these hypotheses. It is recommended that the introduction include a detailed explanation of the research hypotheses, specifying their origins and theoretical background. This will help readers clearly understand the structure of the study and the objectives of the hypothesis testing.

5.       The research methodology section briefly mentions the use of a survey but does not provide a detailed description of the questionnaire design process, content, or the source of the scales. There is no discussion on the structure of the questionnaire, the types of questions (e.g., closed-ended or open-ended questions), or the methods used to measure the variables. In particular, the measurement of key variables such as "community attachment," "perceived benefits," and "perceived costs" is not explained in detail.

6.       In Section 4.1, the authors mention "Male respondents constituted the majority, accounting for 58.5% of the sample, while female respondents made up 32.4%." What was the gender of the remaining 10% of the sample?

7.       The authors provide detailed information on various fit indices (e.g., χ²/df, GFI, CFI), but fail to explain the meaning of these values and their impact on the research results. If these indices are only being used to justify the appropriateness of the model, the discussion on them should be considerably shortened.

8.       The discussion section does not effectively connect the theoretical framework presented earlier, particularly the relationship with Social Exchange Theory (SET). While the support for the hypotheses is mentioned, the theoretical interpretation and comparison with existing literature are quite brief. It is recommended that the authors delve deeper into how the results align or differ from existing theories and research, especially with respect to hypotheses that were not supported, such as the "insignificant effect of perceived costs on community support."

9.       The analysis of the policy and practical implications in the discussion is rather superficial. It is suggested that the authors include more specific strategies for enhancing community attachment and reducing perceived costs. Are there any practical examples or case studies that can serve as references? The authors should provide more actionable policy recommendations and discuss the challenges that might arise in implementing these strategies.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2

 

Dear Reviewer,

 

Thank you for your detailed and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We appreciate the time and effort you have taken to provide insightful suggestions, which have helped us identify areas for improvement. Below, we provide a detailed response to each of your comments.

 

1. Research Problem and Literature Review

Reviewer Comment: The introduction is vague in articulating the research problem, and the literature review does not sufficiently address how SET applies to park development.

Response: We have revised the introduction to clearly articulate the research problem, emphasizing the gaps in existing literature regarding community support in park development projects and the need to explore these issues through the lens of SET. In the literature review, we have added an in-depth discussion on the application of SET specifically to park development, citing recent studies and emphasizing its relevance to understanding community dynamics in this context.

 

2. Linking to Nature-Based Solutions (NbS)

Reviewer Comment: Add references to Nature-Based Solutions (NbS) to increase the study’s impact.

Response: Thank you for the suggestion. We have included a discussion on NbS in the introduction, specifically linking it to park development and community support. References to the recommended articles have been incorporated to highlight the alignment of our research with contemporary trends in the field.

 

3. Definition of Key Variables

Reviewer Comment: Definitions of "community attachment," "perceived benefits," and "perceived costs" are not clear.

Response: We have added clear definitions of these key variables in the methodology section, referencing established empirical research. Additionally, we have elaborated on how these variables are conceptualized and applied in the context of park development.

 

4. Explanation of Hypotheses

Reviewer Comment: The introduction does not describe the hypotheses in detail.

Response: We have revised the introduction to include a detailed explanation of each hypothesis, including its theoretical background and origins. This will help readers understand the structure and objectives of the study.

 

5. Questionnaire Design and Measurement of Variables

Reviewer Comment: The methodology section lacks details on the questionnaire design and measurement of variables.

Response: We have expanded the methodology section to include a comprehensive description of the questionnaire design process, the structure of the questions (e.g., closed-ended questions with a 5-point Likert scale), and the sources of the scales used. We have also provided detailed explanations of how the key variables were measured, referencing the relevant literature.

 

6. Gender Distribution in Demographic Data

Reviewer Comment: Clarify the gender of the remaining 10% of the sample.

Response: We apologize for the oversight. The 9.1% of respondents who were not identified as male or female either chose not to disclose their gender or preferred not to answer. This has been clarified in Section 4.1.

 

7. Fit Indices and Their Significance

Reviewer Comment: The discussion on fit indices is too detailed and lacks explanation of their meaning.

Response: We have shortened the discussion on fit indices and provided a concise explanation of their meaning and relevance to our study. The focus has been shifted to their role in demonstrating the robustness of the model.

 

8. Discussion of Results and Theoretical Framework

Reviewer Comment: The discussion does not effectively connect to the theoretical framework (SET) or existing literature.

Response: We have revised the discussion section to more thoroughly connect our findings to SET and existing literature. In particular, we have elaborated on the insignificant effect of perceived costs on community support, comparing this result with prior studies and offering theoretical interpretations.

 

9. Policy and Practical Implications

Reviewer Comment: The analysis of policy implications is superficial, and specific strategies are lacking.

Response: We have significantly expanded the policy and practical implications section to include specific strategies for enhancing community attachment and reducing perceived costs. Practical examples, such as participatory workshops and transparent communication platforms, have been added, along with a discussion of potential challenges in implementing these strategies.

 

We are grateful for your detailed comments, which have greatly enhanced the quality and clarity of our manuscript. Please let us know if there are additional areas requiring further attention.

 

Sincerely,

 

Eunmie Jang and Moohan Kim

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article aims to utilize the Social Exchange Theory (SET) to analyze and predict community support in Onyang-dong, Asan City. Despite the potential relevance of the study, several conceptual, methodological, and analytical issues diminish its clarity and impact. The central focus of the research is unclear, the methodological choices are insufficiently justified, and the conclusions fail to demonstrate how SET effectively predicts community support.

The conceptual framework of the article is not well-defined. Initially, the authors assert that few studies have explored the social and structural factors supporting community relationships, suggesting that SET can bridge this gap. However, as the literature review unfolds, it becomes evident that prior studies have already addressed similar issues. This contradiction weakens the article’s claim of originality and novelty. Furthermore, the study’s focus is not consistently maintained. While the stated aim is to use SET to predict community support, the analysis frequently shifts to discussing community attachment, without clearly articulating how these two concepts are linked. The relationship between SET and attachment is only superficially addressed, and no cohesive theoretical framework is presented to show how these concepts interact. This lack of conceptual clarity disperses the focus and undermines the study’s theoretical foundation.

The literature review presents an additional challenge to the article’s coherence. While the authors claim there is a scarcity of research examining social and structural factors influencing community relationships, the review includes several studies that have already addressed these themes. This inconsistency weakens the justification for the study’s significance. Instead of clearly identifying a research gap, the literature review inadvertently highlights that similar studies exist, which contradicts the central argument.

The methodology section exhibits several critical weaknesses. The authors fail to justify their choice of methods in relation to the theoretical framework or research gap. Since the stated goal is to predict community support using SET, it is essential to explain how the chosen methods will achieve this objective. However, the authors merely describe the techniques used without providing a rationale for their selection. There is no discussion of how these methods are appropriate for evaluating the predictive capacity of SET.

Another major flaw in the methodology is the handling of sampling and data collection. The authors present demographic characteristics of respondents in Table 1, but there is no mention of the sampling strategy used to select participants. There is no information on how the sample size was determined, whether random or purposive sampling was employed, or whether the sample is representative of the larger community. Additionally, the authors do not address the validation of the survey instruments or questionnaires. Validated instruments are essential for ensuring the reliability and validity of the data, and their absence raises concerns about the rigor of the study’s findings.

Some elements of methodology are only introduced in the results section, which creates confusion. For instance, Table 1, which details the demographic characteristics of respondents, appears in the results section, but there is no prior discussion of how these demographics were factored into the analysis.

The conclusions section fails to deliver on the study’s original promise. The authors do not explicitly demonstrate how SET can be used to predict community support, despite this being the stated aim of the research. While they highlight the need for a detailed analysis of community perceptions and decision-making structures, they do not present clear evidence to support these conclusions. The contribution of the study, therefore, remains unclear.

For the conclusions to be effective, the authors must return to their original objective and explicitly address how SET has been used to predict community support. They must provide a clear answer to this central question. Without this, the study’s contribution to theory and practice remains ambiguous.

In summary, the article attempts to use the Social Exchange Theory to predict community support in Onyang-dong, Asan City. However, it suffers from conceptual ambiguity, methodological shortcomings, and weak analytical coherence. The focus of the study is unclear, and the integration of SET with attachment theory is poorly articulated. Methodological flaws, particularly in sampling, instrument validation, and case selection, reduce the study’s credibility. To enhance its impact, the authors must revise the conceptual framework, justify their methodological choices, and ensure the conclusions clearly address the study’s core research question. By doing so, the study can offer a more substantial contribution to the understanding of community dynamics through the lens of Social Exchange Theory.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3

 

Dear Reviewer,

 

Thank you for your thorough and insightful comments on our manuscript. We deeply value your feedback, as it highlights several key areas for improvement. Below, we address each of your points in detail and outline the revisions we have made to enhance the clarity, coherence, and impact of the study.

 

1. Conceptual Framework

Reviewer Comment: The conceptual framework is not well-defined, and the relationship between SET and community attachment is superficial.

Response: We have revised the conceptual framework to clearly articulate the relationship between SET and community attachment. Specifically, we have included a detailed discussion of how SET provides a theoretical foundation for understanding the social exchanges that influence community attachment and, consequently, community support. Additionally, we have clarified the novelty of our approach by emphasizing the unique application of SET in the context of urban park development, which is distinct from prior studies on social interaction or tourism.

 

2. Literature Review and Research Gap

Reviewer Comment: The literature review fails to justify the study's significance and inadvertently highlights the existence of similar studies.

Response: We have revised the literature review to explicitly identify the research gap. While prior studies have addressed some aspects of social dynamics, we highlight the lack of studies that integrate SET with community attachment to predict support for urban park development. This revision strengthens the justification for our study and aligns it with the identified gap in existing literature.

 

3. Methodological Justification

Reviewer Comment: The methodology section lacks justification for the choice of methods and fails to explain how these methods align with the research objectives.

Response: We have expanded the methodology section to include a clear rationale for our choice of methods. Specifically, we explain why structural equation modeling (SEM) was chosen to evaluate the predictive capacity of SET and its relationship with key variables. We also discuss how the methods align with the study's objective of predicting community support and provide a detailed description of the steps taken to ensure methodological rigor.

 

4. Sampling Strategy and Instrument Validation

Reviewer Comment: The sampling strategy is unclear, and there is no discussion of instrument validation.

Response: We have included a detailed explanation of the sampling strategy, specifying that a stratified random sampling method was employed to ensure representativeness across demographic groups. Additionally, we discuss how the sample size was determined and justify its adequacy for SEM analysis. We have also added information on the validation of the survey instruments, including pilot testing with experts and reliability measures (e.g., Cronbach's alpha values).

 

5. Methodological Clarity and Organization

Reviewer Comment: Some elements of the methodology are introduced in the results section, causing confusion.

Response: We have reorganized the manuscript to ensure all methodological details, including demographic data and their integration into the analysis, are presented in the methodology section. This revision enhances the logical flow and coherence of the manuscript.

 

6. Focus on SET in Conclusions

Reviewer Comment: The conclusions fail to explicitly demonstrate how SET predicts community support.

Response: We have revised the conclusions to directly address how SET was used to predict community support. This includes a summary of key findings, such as the significant impact of perceived benefits and community attachment, and their theoretical alignment with SET. We also discuss the theoretical contributions of our study, particularly the integration of SET with community attachment, and provide practical recommendations based on these insights.

 

7. Policy and Practical Contributions

Reviewer Comment: The conclusions lack actionable recommendations and examples.

Response: We have expanded the discussion of policy and practical implications to include specific strategies for enhancing community attachment and addressing perceived costs. Examples such as participatory workshops, co-design initiatives, and transparent communication platforms have been included to demonstrate how these strategies can be implemented in practice.

 

8. Contribution to Theory and Practice

Reviewer Comment: The study's contribution to theory and practice remains ambiguous.

Response: We have clarified the study's contributions by explicitly stating how it advances the theoretical understanding of community support using SET and its practical implications for urban park planning. We emphasize the novel insights gained from the application of SET in this specific context and propose future research directions to build on our findings.

We are grateful for your detailed and constructive feedback, which has significantly enhanced the clarity and rigor of our manuscript. Please let us know if there are any additional areas requiring further revision.

 

Sincerely,

 

Eunmie Jang and Moohan Kim

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All my issues have been well addressed, thank you!

Author Response

Thank you for your positive feedback and for acknowledging our revisions to address your concerns. We greatly appreciate the time and effort you dedicated to reviewing our manuscript and providing insightful suggestions, which have significantly improved the clarity and focus of our work. Your support and encouragement are highly valued.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I would like to begin by congratulating the authors on the significant improvements made to the manuscript. The revised version demonstrates much greater clarity and effectiveness in presenting its arguments. In particular, the focus of the article is now much sharper, and the importance of using Social Exchange Theory (SET) as a theoretical framework is convincingly articulated. The application of SET to analyze how community attachment shapes perceptions regarding urban parks is particularly valuable, as these spaces are crucial for addressing urban challenges such as climate change and social inequality through sustainable planning and design.

Despite these notable improvements, there are a few areas where further refinements could enhance the manuscript. One key suggestion concerns the placement of the justification for using SET. In section 2.3, titled "Perception of benefits and costs influencing community support for urban park development," the comparison between SET and economic theory is insightful, and the added value of SET is well articulated. However, this justification would be more effective if introduced earlier, specifically on page 2, where the importance of SET is first mentioned. Consolidating the rationale for using SET into a single, coherent paragraph at the beginning would strengthen the theoretical foundation of the study and improve the overall logical flow.

A similar observation applies to the justification of the research problem, which currently appears fragmented across the opening pages. For instance, lines 185–191 offer valuable insights into the relevance of the research problem, but they feel somewhat disconnected from earlier justifications. Bringing these elements together into one cohesive section would provide a clearer and more compelling articulation of the research problem and its significance.

Lastly, a minor suggestion relates to the title of section 3.4, currently labeled "Analysis." This section primarily addresses the mechanisms used to ensure the validity and reliability of the results presented in the subsequent section. A more descriptive title would better align with the section's focus and help guide the reader’s expectations.

 

Overall, the manuscript has a clear contribution to the literature. I look forward to seeing the final version.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

Thank you for your thorough review and positive feedback regarding the improvements made in the revised manuscript. We are grateful for your thoughtful suggestions, which have significantly contributed to enhancing the clarity and quality of our work. Below, we provide a point-by-point response to address your comments and explain the revisions made in the manuscript.

 

1. Placement of the Justification for Using Social Exchange Theory (SET)

Reviewer Comment: The justification for using SET in section 2.3 is insightful but would be more effective if introduced earlier in the manuscript. Consolidating the rationale into a single, coherent paragraph on page 2 would strengthen the theoretical foundation and improve logical flow.

 

Response: Thank you for this valuable suggestion. We have revised the manuscript to incorporate the justification for using SET earlier in the introduction. Specifically, we added the following paragraph on page 2 to clearly establish the rationale for adopting SET as the theoretical framework for this study:

 

“Social Exchange Theory (SET) provides a nuanced framework for understanding community behavior, particularly in contexts where perceptions of benefits and costs influence support for urban park development. Unlike purely economic theories, SET emphasizes the relational and social dimensions of these perceptions, making it particularly suited for this study.”

 

This adjustment consolidates the justification for SET and ensures a cohesive presentation of the theoretical framework early in the manuscript.

 

2. Cohesion in the Research Problem Justification

Reviewer Comment: The justification for the research problem appears fragmented across the opening pages. Bringing these elements together into a cohesive section would provide a clearer articulation of the research problem and its significance.

 

Response: We appreciate this insightful feedback and have reorganized the introduction to consolidate the justification for the research problem into a single cohesive section. Specifically, we integrated the discussion of urban parks' role in sustainable urban planning and their challenges with the earlier justification for the research problem. This unified section now presents the following:

 

"Urban parks are increasingly recognized as vital components of sustainable urban planning, addressing challenges such as climate change, social inequality, and public health. Despite their importance, understanding the community dynamics that shape support for such projects remains underexplored, particularly from the perspective of Social Exchange Theory. This study addresses this gap by examining how community attachment influences perceptions of benefits and costs, thereby shaping community support for park development.“

 

By consolidating these elements, we aim to present a more compelling and coherent justification for the study.

 

3. Title of Section 3.4 ("Analysis")

Reviewer Comment: The current title, "Analysis," is too general. A more descriptive title would better align with the section’s focus on validity and reliability mechanisms.

 

Response: Thank you for highlighting this issue. We have revised the title of section 3.4 to:

 

"Ensuring Validity and Reliability."

 

This updated title provides a clearer representation of the section’s content, emphasizing the mechanisms used to establish the validity and reliability of the study measures

 

We sincerely appreciate your constructive feedback, which has greatly improved the manuscript. We believe that the revisions address all concerns and enhance the clarity, focus, and overall quality of the paper. Thank you for your time and effort in reviewing our work. We hope the revised manuscript meets your expectations and look forward to your feedback.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Moohan Kim