Neighborhood Decline and Green Coverage Change in Los Angeles Suburbs: A Social-Ecological Perspective
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis article uses two frameworks to provide an in-depth study of 331 different neighbourhoods in the outer ring of Los Angeles to determine green coverage by neighbourhood change index of declining neighbourhoods. The measures of factors to decline and time lag provide in depth analysis and interesting findings. The originality of the study requires some clarifying, how findings are supported by existing studies are in discussion.
The analysis is in-depth with panarchy and adaptive cycle used to analyse influence on grn of declining neighbourhoods across 331 neighbourhoods. The analysis of leading to and causal to decline could also be specified, as could recommendation for redevelopment, conservation compared to loss or abandoned due to declining.
A sentence or two about how the adaptive cycle expects decline, and the nci with non declining and grn could be added. And a clarification as the loss and abandonment compared to redevelopment in methods could also be added as related to the adaptive cycle framework.
Materials and methods
The materials and methods explain the frameworks used and provide explanation of analysis and literature review in the appendices. The appendices could be in the materials and methods section, or a specific reference to them, and some figures in the main text instead of footnotes. The analysis explained in the appendices, following the explanation of the two frameworks might better prepare the reader for the results. Each appendix has important information including significance, the number of neighbourhoods studied, and maps in figures and background information for the analysis and findings.
3. Results
Line 106 refers to loss and or degradation, not redevelopment as examples for reorganisation. The difference between redevelopment and the examples provided for reorganisation do seem significant. Figure 1 does present “E” as redevelopment and land use succession compared to loss or abandonment. The factors as variables are influential to how, when and or whether a decline eventuates and then how it might proceed. It doesn’t emphasise how reorganisation is determined by loss or abandonment compared to redevelopment. This combined point might be important to clarify.
Or the specific analysis of lead to declining neighbourhoods, not for redevelopment or loss/abandonment as reorganisation, and the indicators for decline, if population is the only indicator.
The reference to loss/abandonment for reorganisation might be because of a focus on declining neighbourhoods and green coverage changes.
3. Results
Figure 5: greenery for grn. Or GRN coverage on the y axis.
Table 5 refers to grn coverage.
4. Discussion
Line 521-524: should the discussion directly associate green coverage with factors influential to declining neighbourhoods, from the mixed effect model, as NCI does in figure 5.
The decline is assumed for the framework selected, adaptive cycle, it therefore could be in introductory sentences as to how each factor or the combination of factors that are generally influential to declines and then green coverage, with the explanation of why green coverage is lower with declines than with non declining neighbourhoods already discussed and cited. Or how general decline is measured or what is referred to, as a combination of factors, or is a table presented representative of the significant factors most influential to general decline.
The discussion or methods could also specify the focus of the adaptive cycle or concept to whether there is decline, and the factors leading to decline, and that it is not an analysis of redevelopment or loss/abandoned green coverage, with the difference in mean green coverage for declining compared to non declining neighbourhoods, like table 4, presented. This table connects to a comment about the adaptive cycle and analysis of leading up to decline.
Conclusion
After line 624: Are policies different for declining and non declining, and for different declining and post decline neighbourhoods, by redevelopment, conservation compared to loss and degradation.
Line 645-653: This paragraph could be at the beginning of the conclusion.
Appendices
Appendix A could be a subsection in methods. A summary for the first table could be added.
Line 729-742: Could or should be in the methods section. It explains significance and even originality of a level of analysis.
Figure 2 and maybe figure 3 and connected summaries could be in the main text.
Either a brief summary of appendix c could be in the methods as well.
The English does need a proof read.
Line 403: neighbourhood(s) is an example.
Author Response
Reviewer #1
This article uses two frameworks to provide an in-depth study of 331 different neighbourhoods in the outer ring of Los Angeles to determine green coverage by neighbourhood change index of declining neighbourhoods. The measures of factors to decline and time lag provide in depth analysis and interesting findings. The originality of the study requires some clarifying, how findings are supported by existing studies are in discussion.
Reply: Thank you for your thoughtful feedback on our study. We agree that the novelty of my research was not clearly articulated. In the revised version, within the Introduction (Lines 44–57), we clarified how this work addresses gaps in the literature. Specifically, the contributions include: the neighborhood-level scale of analysis and outer-ring (versus inner-ring) suburban context; the larger sample size (as compared to Ramos et al. 2014, for example https://www.jstor.org/stable/26269522 ); the use of a clear theoretical framework grounded in Socioecological Systems theory and neighborhood change models from urban economics literature; the integration of multiple factors supported by the Life-Cycle Neighborhood Change theory (as compared to a single factor as found in other studies); and the incorporation of a multiscale structure within the model (hierarchical: Ecoregions à County à Neighborhood). We also added a reference in the Appendix to a summary table of green space studies, that provides a clear context for this research.
The analysis is in-depth with panarchy and adaptive cycle used to analyse influence on grn of declining neighbourhoods across 331 neighbourhoods. The analysis of leading to and causal to decline could also be specified, as could recommendation for redevelopment, conservation compared to loss or abandoned due to declining. A sentence or two about how the adaptive cycle expects decline, and the nci with non declining and grn could be added. And a clarification as the loss and abandonment compared to redevelopment in methods could also be added as related to the adaptive cycle framework.
Reply: If we understand your point correctly, you are requesting further clarification on the mechanisms of neighborhood change. These are detailed in the discussion of neighborhood change models (life cycle).
In this study the suburban neighborhoods are classified as either declining or non-declining (steady or improving), which represents a general classification of potential outcomes for neighborhoods experiencing duress. We do not attempt to make specific recommendations for each case, as it is outside the scope of the study. However, we do review in the conclusion section several potential policies and spatial strategies that could be implemented for stabilizing and pre-empting suburban green area loss.
The alternative outcomes for neighborhoods experiencing decline align with the two trajectory types in the Adaptive-Cycle model: collapse versus reorganization. To address this diversity in outcomes, we expanded our discussion of the Adaptive Cycle within the Socioecological Systems framework, focusing on its application to neighborhoods and urban outcomes. In Section 2.2 (Lines 136–154), we now include plausible scenarios illustrating the implications of the Adaptive Cycle in urban planning, such as abandonment and its manifestations in the urban context, as well as the potential outcomes of remedial interventions like urban renewal and social advocacy, supported with examples.
Additionally, your concerns are also reflected in the recommendations presented in the conclusion. Based on the demonstrated association between green coverage and neighborhood decline, we provided recommendations focused on stronger governance for the management and protection of suburban green areas. These are discussed in two scenarios—densification and less-dense suburbs (Lines 715–731).
Materials and methods
The materials and methods explain the frameworks used and provide explanation of analysis and literature review in the appendices. The appendices could be in the materials and methods section, or a specific reference to them, and some figures in the main text instead of footnotes. The analysis explained in the appendices, following the explanation of the two frameworks might better prepare the reader for the results. Each appendix has important information including significance, the number of neighbourhoods studied, and maps in figures and background information for the analysis and findings.
Reply: We agree and thank you for your suggestion to improve the clarity of our methodology. The maps you referred to have been moved from the Appendix to the main text and are now included under Section 3.3: Case – Sampling and Study Delimitation.
- Results
Line 106 refers to loss and or degradation, not redevelopment as examples for reorganisation. The difference between redevelopment and the examples provided for reorganisation do seem significant. Figure 1 does present “E” as redevelopment and land use succession compared to loss or abandonment. The factors as variables are influential to how, when and or whether a decline eventuates and then how it might proceed. It doesn’t emphasise how reorganisation is determined by loss or abandonment compared to redevelopment. This combined point might be important to clarify. Or the specific analysis of lead to declining neighbourhoods, not for redevelopment or loss/abandonment as reorganisation, and the indicators for decline, if population is
the only indicator. The reference to loss/abandonment for reorganisation might be because of a focus on declining neighbourhoods and green coverage changes.
Reply: Unfortunately, we weren’t able to locate the discussion you’re referring to in Line 106, but we understand the concern you raised. To address this, we added clarifications to avoid confusion between the E’ and E” alternative scenarios, which are plausible trajectories for a neighborhood (Lines 222–226). We also improved the phrasing of our findings in the Discussion section, including a reference linking our hypothesis—the relationship between neighborhood decline, and green coverage loss/degradation—to the corresponding stages of the Adaptive Cycle (Lines 607–610).
Additionally, in the Conclusion, we highlighted the contrast between the two possible outcomes within our recommendations, addressing contributing factors to abandonment versus redevelopment, and providing actionable recommendations (Lines 7152–731). It is important to clarify that in this paper we do not attempt to provide specific strategies for stabilization or reorganization for each of the cases -- as it is outside the scope of the study -- but rather focus on identifying and testing if a relationship between neighborhood decline and green coverage degradation exists in Los Angeles outer-ring suburbs. Therefore, contributing to a better understanding of neighborhood Lifecycle and SES Adapative-Cycle in suburban contexts.
It is important to note that this analysis captures associations observed over the study period (1970–2020) using decadal data and does not make claims about the future trajectories of neighborhoods beyond this framework. Neighborhoods classified as declining, steady, or improving (non-declining) do not have a predetermined outcome, as describde in the literature review and conclusion. Shifts and change in rates can occur at any stage in response to internal and/or external factors. The process of reorganization within a system is complex, and redevelopment represents an intervention that can facilitate this reorganization. In our study, we examined the impact of socioeconomic decline on green coverage as a contributing factor of neighborhood decline in suburbs. Overall, we find the association statistically significant. In contraposition, neighborhoods with steady or improving socioeconomic trajectories generally did not experience green coverage loss or degradation, but rather improvement. Decline is determined using the Neighborhood Change Index (NCI), generated by integrating a set of 16 socioeconomic factors derived from neighborhood life-cycle theory.
- Results
Figure 5: greenery for grn. Or GRN coverage on the y axis. Table 5 refers to grn coverage.
Reply: That is correct; the table’s caption reflects this. The Y-axis represents the mean green coverage. This figure is now Figure # 10, after adding the appendices maps and a new diagram suggested by reviewer #3) and we have replaced the ‘GRN’ abbreviation with ‘Green Coverage’ for clarity.
- Discussion
Line 521-524: should the discussion directly associate green coverage with factors influential to declining neighbourhoods, from the mixed effect model, as NCI does in figure 5. The decline is assumed for the framework selected, adaptive cycle, it therefore could be in introductory sentences as to how each factor or the combination of factors that are generally influential to declines and then green coverage, with the explanation of why green coverage is lower with declines than with non declining neighbourhoods already discussed and cited. Or how general decline is measured or what is referred to, as a combination of factors, or is a table presented representative of the significant factors most influential to general decline. The discussion or methods could also specify the focus of the adaptive cycle or concept to whether there is decline, and the factors leading to decline, and that it is not an analysis of redevelopment or loss/abandoned green coverage, with the difference in mean green coverage for declining compared to non declining neighbourhoods, like table 4, presented. This table connects to a comment about the adaptive cycle and analysis of leading up to decline.
Reply: Thank you for highlighting the connection between our theoretical framework and the findings. We have emphasized this relationship by discussing the urban manifestations of decline and reorganization while explaining the Adaptive Cycle concept and clarifying the implications of our findings for Adaptive Cycle theory. To further clarify the role of contributing variables, we have restated the final factors influencing green coverage change, loss, or degradation in the Discussion (Lines 603–606). Additionally, we have reiterated that our hypothesis is driven by the Neighborhood Change Index (NCI) as a composite measure of decline, rather than by individual factors (Lines 592–596). Also, we developed and used the NCI index to help identify declining vs. non-declining suburban neighborhoods as a key first step in testing hypothesis one (see new figure??) using ordered probit models. The second part of the study that relies on multivariate models is aimed at identifying which factors are significant and more relevant in explaining the degradation of green coverage in the sample of neighborhoods. Each modeling technique addresses one of the two guiding research questions separately, as presented in the Introduction.
Conclusion
After line 624: Are policies different for declining and nondeclining, and for different declining and post decline neighbourhoods, by redevelopment, conservation compared to loss and degradation. Line 645-653: This paragraph could be at the beginning of the conclusion.
Reply: Yes. Policies for declining and non-declining suburban neighborhoods would be different. In non-declining suburbs that value green areas and stable suburban neighborhoods they would craft and implement policies geared to the protection and conservation of green areas and maintain their ecosystem services, in both public and private areas; as well as policies geared to maintain socio-economic stability as this has been shown in this and other studies to likely influence green area coverage and quality.
In suburbs already experiencing sharp decline or blight (Declining (Ω)à Reorganization (α) phase) -- with no prospects of re-stabilizing its initial state -- then policies geared to encourage public and private reinvestment (likely in higher-density scenarios due to new urban economic conditions) whilst maintaining or mitigating likely loss of green coverage and their ecosystem services would be a logical course. This may include regulations requiring minimum green areas and/or green architecture strategies (e.g., roof gardens, solar panels, recycling materials, storm-water reuse, etc.) and/or ecological urbanism provisions that could reintroduce, to some extent, lost ecosystem services and aesthetic/cultural benefits of suburban green areas (e.g., provision of minimum park areas, sponge city strategies, green area reserves under public tenure, etc.).
Also, thank you. We have moved that paragraph of the conclusion to the beginning.
Appendices
Appendix A could be a subsection in methods. A summary for the first table could be added. Line 729-742: Could or should be in the methods section. It explains significance and even originality of a level of analysis. Figure 2 and maybe figure 3 and connected summaries could be in the main text. Either a brief summary of appendix c could be in the methods as well.
Reply: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree that the findings on gaps in the green space literature demonstrate a gap addressed in our study and provide evidence of its novelty. We have now provided an explicit explanation of the study’s originality in the Introduction and included a reference to this table there.
The English does need a proof read. Line 403: neighbourhood(s) is an example.
Reply: Certainly. The document has been carefully proofread, and multiple sections have been revised and improved. The noted example (neighbourhood) is the usual way to write for a British readership; we can revise and edit for American English if that is preferred, where ‘neighborhood’ would be the correct spelling.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. The literature review is extensive and sometimes degenerates into a narrative listing, lacking critical comparison and insufficiently highlighting the differences and contributions of this study compared to existing research.
2. The data resolution of this paper is somewhat insufficient. For example, green cover is based solely on NDVI (Landsat, summer imagery) with a temporal resolution of 10 years, which fails to capture more nuanced changes.
3. The governance and policy variables in the research hypothesis are not significant. County-level planning/regulatory indicators fail to have a significant impact in the model. Although the authors explain this as "measurement error or model-captured variation," this undermines the argument for "governance factors."
4. The application of SES (Social-Ecological Systems) is relatively conceptual. While Adaptive Cycle and Panarchy appear in the discussion, they are relatively abstract at the operational level of the model and lack concrete indicators or validation.
5. The research results of this paper are consistent with the hypothesis, confirming that "socioeconomic decline is significantly associated with decreased green cover." However, the "Discussion" section could be enhanced, for example by adding comparisons with other cities/case studies.
6. There are errors or omissions in the paper format and author information. Please adjust these when revising the paper.
Author Response
Reviewer #2
This is a unique paper that focuses on the correlation between the economy and green space in Los Angeles, a major US city. Please provide additional explanation for two points regarding the summer season.
- This study points out a correlation between socioeconomic decline and the reduction and loss of suburban green space. However, this socioeconomic decline is due to simple factors such as a decrease in the city's budget for green space conservation, as well as systemic factors such as national and regional recessions, and more complex issues such as widening income inequality. Please provide further consideration on this point. 2. Figure 3 shows a development model. What factors do you think might make the model's development more rapid or slower? Please explain this as well.
Reply: Thank you for your insights into this discussion. You raise an important point regarding the incorporation of other internal and external factors. Neighborhood change is a complex phenomenon influenced by numerous interconnected factors. In this study, we attempted to control these as much as possible.
R1. Regarding internal and external factors, and the potential impact of a city or budget reduction, it is important to highlight that we are focusing on residential suburban neighborhoods where it is likely that most green areas are under private domain. We are also controlling any variation due to clustering of neighborhoods within different counties, which may have different policies (and budget) priorities regarding green coverage in suburban public and private spaces. This is where the hierarchical model county-level random component helps.
Larger scale external factors, such as national or regional recessions, are partially controlled by the research single-case design (all case are located in Los Angeles), which controls for any potential reginal economic trend differences that may be occurring in the US West Coast or California region. Income differences is addressed indirectly by recognizing differences in employment levels, median home value (which is used often as a proxy for household income, education levels, etc.) at neighborhood level.
We also considered ecological variables, such as precipitation and wildfire, as the most significant ecological influences in the study area. In the final results, the general accumulated effect of ecoregions in the random effects appeared to be the most significant external factor. While this approach does not capture all specific external factors in detail, it provides a foundation for future analyses to incorporate more elaborate regional and county-level variables.
R2. Yes, it represents a neighborhood life-cycle model. Both internal and/or external factors may affect the rate of change in the life cycle. Although we do not address this aspect in our study, as it is outside the scope of the investigation, there are a few studies that look at the rate of change in neighborhoods: Schnake-Mahl et al. (2020) https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7010901/ ; and Glaeser et al. (2020) https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/glaeser/files/gentrificationandneighborhoodchangeyelp.pdf ; demographic and retail changes associated with gentrification seem to be influential accelerators of neighborhood change in this 21st century. This si certainly and interesting topic worth pursuing in future research extensions, and also looking at possible decelerators factors as well as some communities could be interested in thwarting change, rather than accelerating.
Regarding the speed of neighborhood green space change, we agree that it can be influenced by several key elements, which may accelerate or slow transitions depending on local conditions. Factors that may accelerate green space change (likely green space loss) include rapid urbanization and dense development (Hu et al., 2024), market pressures and real estate values (Conway et al., 2010), socioeconomic disadvantage (Klompmaker et al., 2023), and weaker governance or planning (Uchida et al., 2024). Conversely, factors that may slow green space change (loss) include strong community advocacy and social capital (McDonald et al., 2023), effective conservation policies or zoning (Uchida et al., 2024), affluence and education (Klompmaker et al., 2023), and lower development pressure.
For external factors, we accounted for them using the multilevel random effects in our model, specifically through county-scale effects.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis is a unique paper that focuses on the correlation between the economy and green space in Los Angeles, a major US city.
Please provide additional explanation for two points regarding the summer season.
1. This study points out a correlation between socioeconomic decline and the reduction and loss of suburban green space. However, this socioeconomic decline is due to simple factors such as a decrease in the city's budget for green space conservation, as well as systemic factors such as national and regional recessions, and more complex issues such as widening income inequality. Please provide further consideration on this point.
2. Figure 3 shows a development model. What factors do you think might make the model's development more rapid or slower? Please explain this as well.
Author Response
Reviewer #3
My comments for this article are as follows: The presentation of the article is not careful. The manuscript would benefit from careful revision. The title is too long and not very objective.
Reply: Thank you for your observation. We will address your points one by one.
The title has been abridged and updated.
In chapter 1. is necessary indicate and highlight how the study in the article differs from those that have already been published in the literature.
Reply: We agree that the research gaps addressed in this study, which constitute its novelty, were not clearly articulated. In the Introduction (Lines 44–57), we have now clarified the contributions this research makes to the existing literature.
Chapter 2 - Materials and Methods needs to be revised.
To facilitate the article's readability, I suggest that the Literature Review not be presented in the Materials and
Reply: Certainly. The literature review has been placed in a separate section preceding the Methods.
Methods chapter.
The Research Questions and Hypotheses should be presented in the Introduction.
Reply: Sure, thank you. We have added the research questions and hypotheses in the Introduction (Lines 58–74).
It makes no sense for subchapter 2.2.5 (Line 221) to be placed before subchapter 2.2. Research Design and Methods (Line 235).
Reply: It has been moved to introduction
Line 236 - Delete “Introduction”.
Reply: Deleted
Subchapter numbering should be sequential. For example: Line 244 - 2.2.1. Research Design and the following subchapter 2.3.2. Inferential Statistics (Line 276).
Reply: Sure, the numberings has been updated in the revised paper.
The methodology is not clear, not allowing the work to be replicated. Logical relationships of the steps the model is not clear. It is suggested to use flowcharts or numbered lists to clearly show each step.
Reply: Thank you for your suggestion to improve the readability of the paper. That is an excellent idea. We have added a flowchart of the research design (Line 294) illustrating the procedures from data collection to results.
Lines 308-309 – is referred "...the final sample includes 331 census tracts." Authors must present the sample characteristics (population, housing units, etc.)
Reply: In the original submission, there was a notation on population and housing unit statistics, which I have highlighted in Lines 317–318. Additionally, I have included more descriptive statistics for these cases in the caption of Figure 6, placed above the previous statistics, and highlighted as well.
Authors must justify the choice and interest of each of the models mentioned (Model1,...Model 5).
Reply: Thank you for your note. In the original submission, the model description section contained this content, but we have rewritten the model specification description to better communicate its purpose and clarify the differences between Models 1–2 and Models 3–5 (Lines 443–470). Additionally, we have moved content from the Appendix (previously B24.2), which explains how the choice of a mixed-effects model relates to the theoretical concepts, specifically Panarchy, into Lines 419–423 and Line 432-438. This is followed by a diagram illustrating the scale at which fixed-effect and random-effect variables apply, with the aim of clarifying the notation. Furthermore, Lines 755–761 in the conclusion also address the role of model choice as well as in the description of dependent and explanatory variables in the material and methods section.
Line 333 -335 – is referred “…. Additionally, to address broader ecological impacts on green coverage in outer-ring suburbs, precipitation and wildfire—key local ecological factors—were introduced as exploratory variables.” It would be interesting to explain why added precipitation and wildfire to address broader ecological impacts on green coverage in outer-ring suburbs.
Reply: Sure. I have added the requested explanation to better justify the choice of these two ecological factors (Lines 352–359). Social-ecological systems are inherently open and shaped by both internal and external forces, social as well as natural. Our dependent variable of interest—green coverage and quality—is directly influenced by natural factors, such as precipitation and wildfire, which are endemic phenomena in suburban ecosystems in Los Angeles.
The conclusion fails to comprehensively summarize the core findings of the research and should explain how the results provide an reference for spatial planning.
Reply: Thank you for your insightful observation. We agree and have revised the Conclusion section to incorporate spatial planning insights, including examples of successful practices. Specifically, Line 704-728 provides a summary of the research and findings, while Lines 729–785 present examples and discuss how the results can inform the development of policies to preserve or manage growth, highlighting the implications of our findings.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsMy comments for this article are as follows:
The presentation of the article is not careful. The manuscript would benefit from careful revision.
The title is too long and not very objective.
In chapter 1. is necessary indicate and highlight how the study in the article differs from those that have already been published in the literature.
Chapter 2 - Materials and Methods needs to be revised.
To facilitate the article's readability, I suggest that the Literature Review not be presented in the Materials and Methods chapter.
The Research Questions and Hypotheses should be presented in the Introduction. It makes no sense for subchapter 2.2.5 (Line 221) to be placed before subchapter 2.2. Research Design and Methods (Line 235).
Line 236 - Delete “Introduction”.
Subchapter numbering should be sequential. For example: Line 244 - 2.2.1. Research Design and the following subchapter 2.3.2. Inferential Statistics (Line 276).
The methodology is not clear, not allowing the work to be replicated. Logical relationships of the steps the model is not clear. It is suggested to use flowcharts or numbered lists to clearly show each step.
Lines 308-309 – is referred "...the final sample includes 331 census tracts." Authors must present the sample characteristics (population, housing units, etc.)
Authors must justify the choice and interest of each of the models mentioned (Model 1,...Model 5).
Line 333 -335 – is referred “…. Additionally, to address broader ecological impacts on green coverage in outer-ring suburbs, precipitation and wildfire—key local ecological factors—were introduced as exploratory variables.” It would be interesting to explain why added precipitation and wildfire to address broader ecological impacts on green coverage in outer-ring suburbs.
The conclusion fails to comprehensively summarize the core findings of the research and should explain how the results provide an reference for spatial planning.
Author Response
Reviewer #4
(Why the comments on Reviewer # 3 are repeated as Review#4?!)
My comments for this article are as follows: The presentation of the article is not careful. The manuscript would benefit from careful revision. The title is too long and not very objective.
Reply: Thank you for your observation. We will address your points one by one.
The title has been abridged and updated.
In chapter 1. is necessary indicate and highlight how the study in the article differs from those that have already been published in the literature.
Reply: We agree that the research gaps addressed in this study, which constitute its novelty, were not clearly articulated. In the Introduction (Lines 44–57), we have now clarified the contributions this research makes to the existing literature.
Chapter 2 - Materials and Methods needs to be revised.
To facilitate the article's readability, I suggest that the Literature Review not be presented in the Materials and
Reply: Certainly. The literature review has been placed in a separate section preceding the Methods.
Methods chapter.
The Research Questions and Hypotheses should be presented in the Introduction.
Reply: Sure, thank you. We have added the research questions and hypotheses in the Introduction (Lines 58–74).
It makes no sense for subchapter 2.2.5 (Line 221) to be placed before subchapter 2.2. Research Design and Methods (Line 235).
Reply: It has been moved to introduction
Line 236 - Delete “Introduction”.
Reply: Deleted
Subchapter numbering should be sequential. For example: Line 244 - 2.2.1. Research Design and the following subchapter 2.3.2. Inferential Statistics (Line 276).
Reply: Sure, the numberings has been updated in the revised paper.
The methodology is not clear, not allowing the work to be replicated. Logical relationships of the steps the model is not clear. It is suggested to use flowcharts or numbered lists to clearly show each step.
Reply: Thank you for your suggestion to improve the readability of the paper. That is an excellent idea. We have added a flowchart of the research design (Line 294) illustrating the procedures from data collection to results.
Lines 308-309 – is referred "...the final sample includes 331 census tracts." Authors must present the sample characteristics (population, housing units, etc.)
Reply: In the original submission, there was a notation on population and housing unit statistics, which I have highlighted in Lines 317–318. Additionally, I have included more descriptive statistics for these cases in the caption of Figure 6, placed above the previous statistics, and highlighted as well.
Authors must justify the choice and interest of each of the models mentioned (Model1,...Model 5).
Reply: Thank you for your note. In the original submission, the model description section contained this content, but we have rewritten the model specification description to better communicate its purpose and clarify the differences between Models 1–2 and Models 3–5 (Lines 443–470). Additionally, we have moved content from the Appendix (previously B24.2), which explains how the choice of a mixed-effects model relates to the theoretical concepts, specifically Panarchy, into Lines 419–423 and Line 432-438. This is followed by a diagram illustrating the scale at which fixed-effect and random-effect variables apply, with the aim of clarifying the notation. Furthermore, Lines 755–761 in the conclusion also address the role of model choice as well as in the description of dependent and explanatory variables in the material and methods section.
Line 333 -335 – is referred “…. Additionally, to address broader ecological impacts on green coverage in outer-ring suburbs, precipitation and wildfire—key local ecological factors—were introduced as exploratory variables.” It would be interesting to explain why added precipitation and wildfire to address broader ecological impacts on green coverage in outer-ring suburbs.
Reply: Sure. I have added the requested explanation to better justify the choice of these two ecological factors (Lines 352–359). Social-ecological systems are inherently open and shaped by both internal and external forces, social as well as natural. Our dependent variable of interest—green coverage and quality—is directly influenced by natural factors, such as precipitation and wildfire, which are endemic phenomena in suburban ecosystems in Los Angeles.
The conclusion fails to comprehensively summarize the core findings of the research and should explain how the results provide an reference for spatial planning.
Reply: Thank you for your insightful observation. We agree and have revised the Conclusion section to incorporate spatial planning insights, including examples of successful practices. Specifically, Line 704-728 provides a summary of the research and findings, while Lines 729–785 present examples and discuss how the results can inform the development of policies to preserve or manage growth, highlighting the implications of our findings.
Round 2
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI appreciate the revisions made by the authors. I think the efforts of the authors have improved the quality of the manuscript.
