The Influence of Environmental Knowledge and Religiosity on Public Preferences for Ecosystem Services in Urban Green Spaces—An Example from China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After reading the review, I would like to point out the comments and suggestions that came to mind while reading:

- I think that the abstract should be expanded to include information on the methodology - this element is missing and should be there. The section on methodology describes the steps of the procedure very well. I think that the authors should mention them in the abstract. Complementing this with information on the spatial scope of the research.

- Title: I think that the title should be slightly modified: I suggest adding an element to the original title indicating the territorial scope of the research. Then the title would be as follows:

The influence of environmental knowledge and religiosity on 2 public preferences for ecosystem services in urban green spaces - example from China

- Lines 78-81 are the objectives - dashes ("-") should be added

- When stating hypotheses, I would use full names and not abbreviations.

Methodology:

- I have no comments on the chapter on methodology - all steps have been described in detail, which is not so common in the case of survey research.

I am only wondering about one thing, hence my question: why are the authors only now publishing the results of the research conducted in 2019? A lot has happened since then (including the COVID-19 pandemic). This could have led to a change in the perception of certain issues. This could be a premise for repeating the research and checking whether the lockdown caused by COVID-19 changed the perception of respondents in the area of ​​research conducted in 2019.

Results:

I have minor comments on Table 2:

- it should be added in brackets in what currency the respondents indicated their monthly income. Is it income per household or per 1 inhabitant?

- please justify the adopted age range of respondents.

- Fig. 2 - for better readability I would use full names, not abbreviations.

 

- I have no reservations about the results and discussions. All segments have been described in detail. The authors have devoted a segment in the manuscript devoted to implications, research limitations, future directions of research - this is also an important part of the work. Thanks to this, readers, reviewers, and authorities have an insight into the difficulties that scientists are struggling with.

 

As for future research directions, in addition to those indicated in the article, I encourage the authors to conduct quantitative research (based on secondary data) and repeat the survey research. I will repeat: a lot was happening in the economy, in the world, which could have changed the perception of respondents.

 

- I believe that the selection of literature is appropriate - 75% of the publications are international in nature.

- The fact that an additional file regarding the methodology was attached to the article should be appreciated. This emphasizes the credibility and accuracy of the research conducted.

Author Response

Comments 1：I think that the abstract should be expanded to include information on the methodology - this element is missing and should be there. The section on methodology describes the steps of the procedure very well. I think that the authors should mention them in the abstract. Complementing this with information on the spatial scope of the research.

Respond 1：We sincerely appreciate your valuable feedback. In full agreement with your suggestion, we have expanded the abstract in response, incorporating a brief description of the research methods. In the revised abstract, we have provided a concise description of the research methods, detailing the specific steps of data collection and clarifying the spatial scope of the study. Furthermore, we have emphasized that this study is based on a Chinese sample, thereby more effectively reflecting the geographical context of the research. By incorporating this information, we aim to offer the readers a more comprehensive understanding of the research design and methodology, while also enhancing the clarity of the study’ s geographical scope. This will contribute to improving the clarity and completeness of the abstract.

Comments 2：Title: I think that the title should be slightly modified: I suggest adding an element to the original title indicating the territorial scope of the research. Then the title would be as follows:

The influence of environmental knowledge and religiosity on 2 public preferences for ecosystem services in urban green spaces - example from China

Respond 2：Thank you for your suggestion! In response to your feedback, we have revised the title by incorporating " - An example from China" to clearly delineate the geographical scope of the study.

Comments 3：Lines 78-81 are the objectives - dashes ("-") should be added

Respond 3：Thank you for your detailed advice! Based on your feedback, we have added dashes ("-") in the statement of objectives. This helps clearly distinguish each research objective, making it easier to read and understand.

Comments 4：When stating hypotheses, I would use full names and not abbreviations.

Respond 4：We sincerely appreciate your suggestion. In response to your feedback, we have expanded the abbreviations in the hypothesis section to their full forms, thereby ensuring enhanced clarity and adherence to standardization. All first-time abbreviations (e.g., ESSP and KEE) are now spelled out in full, with the respective abbreviations indicated in parentheses.

Comments 5：Methodology: I have no comments on the chapter on methodology - all steps have been described in detail, which is not so common in the case of survey research.

5）I am only wondering about one thing, hence my question: why are the authors only now publishing the results of the research conducted in 2019? A lot has happened since then (including the COVID-19 pandemic). This could have led to a change in the perception of certain issues. This could be a premise for repeating the research and checking whether the lockdown caused by COVID-19 changed the perception of respondents in the area of ​​research conducted in 2019.

Respond 5：We sincerely appreciate your valuable insights and attention! We acknowledge that, since the commencement of data collection in 2019, particularly with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, numerous significant global changes have occurred across various social, environmental, and economic domains. These transformations may have profound implications for public perceptions and preferences regarding ecosystem services, particularly in terms of urban green space utilization and the prioritization of environmental services.

In regard to the matter of replicating studies that you raised, we fully concur that the pandemic may offer new perspectives. Specifically, as public attention to health and environmental issues has intensified, the COVID-19 pandemic may have precipitated a heightened focus on air quality, outdoor recreation, and environmental protection, all of which could subsequently shape preferences for ecosystem services. Specifically, as public attention to health and environmental issues has intensified, the COVID-19 pandemic may have precipitated a heightened focus on air quality, outdoor recreation, and environmental protection, all of which could subsequently shape preferences for ecosystem services.

However, due to the delays associated with the publication process, primarily stemming from the peer review cycle, we also recognize that new variables arising post-pandemic may impact the findings of this study. Consequently, future studies could integrate the ongoing pandemic context, conducting cross-sectional comparisons or repeated experiments to investigate the potential effects of the pandemic on public preferences. Once again, we sincerely thank you for your thoughtful insights and suggestions. We will take this issue into account in future research, and it may serve as a potential direction for subsequent studies.

Comments 6：Results: I have minor comments on Table 2: it should be added in brackets in what currency the respondents indicated their monthly income. Is it income per household or per 1 inhabitant?

Respond 6：Thank you for your detailed advice! Regarding the income data in Table 2, the issue you raised is indeed an important detail. We will explicitly indicate in Table 2 that the reported monthly income of respondents is expressed in RMB, and we will add a note clarifying that this refers to individual income rather than household income.

Comments 7：please justify the adopted age range of respondents.

Respond 7：We justify the adopted age range of respondents line number 279 to 287. The age range of respondents was carefully selected to ensure a comprehensive representation of different life stages. The inclusion of respondents under 25 years allows for insights from younger individuals, including students and early career professionals, while the age groups 26-30 and 31-40 capture perspectives from those in the early to mid-career stages. Including respondents aged 41-50 and above 51 ensures that we also consider the viewpoints of individuals with more career and life experience. This diverse age distribution helps provide a well-rounded understanding of the topic across different socio-economic and generational perspectives, contributing to the robustness of the study's findings.

Comments 8： Fig. 2 - for better readability I would use full names, not abbreviations.

Respond 8：Thank you for your attention to the readability of Figure 2! Based on your suggestion, we will revise Figure 2 by using the full names instead of abbreviations.

We hope these revisions address your concerns and improve the clarity of our discussion. Thank you again for your insightful comments.

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1 Abstract:
The abstract does not clearly present the core data findings from the research. It is crucial to include the key results in the abstract to provide readers with a concise understanding of the study’s main conclusions. Additionally, the problem statement and background are somewhat unclear and need to be more explicitly stated to highlight the research’s relevance and importance.

2 Introduction:
The introduction should be expanded to situate the study within a broader global context, specifically addressing Ecosystem services and urban green spaces. This section should provide a more detailed discussion of current research trends, gaps, and the necessity of the study. Furthermore, the inclusion of relevant and up-to-date literature is necessary to strengthen the theoretical foundation and highlight the study’s significance. Clearly stating the research problem and objectives will help guide the reader toward understanding the study’s purpose.

3 Literature Review:
The literature review should go beyond listing data types. Instead, it must provide a structured explanation of the research framework and methodology.

The discussion should clearly delineate the research gaps and justify the selection of data and methodological approaches, ultimately leading to the study’s research framework. The way to map the research framework is to refer to 10.1016/j.apgeog.2024.103472 or 10.1186/s40494-024-01497-7. It will make all your analytics more clear for the audience's understanding.

4 Methodology:
The research methods section lacks quantitative formulae for the applied econometric models. Including explicit equations for the statistical methods used will enhance the rigor and transparency of the analysis.

Table 1 and relevant indicators' interpretation better to move to section 3, as the data acquisition part. This comment depends on the authors' judgment. 

5 Figure Quality:
The clarity and readability of Figure 4 need significant improvement. The text and visual elements should be enhanced for better readability and visual impact.

6 Discussion:
The discussion section should be more explicitly connected to the research questions and engage in deeper dialogue with existing literature. It is essential to contextualize the findings within the broader academic discourse and respond to the study’s initial research questions to reinforce the study’s contributions.

 

Author Response

Comments 1：Abstract: The abstract does not clearly present the core data findings from the research. It is crucial to include the key results in the abstract to provide readers with a concise understanding of the study’s main conclusions. Additionally, the problem statement and background are somewhat unclear and need to be more explicitly stated to highlight the research’s relevance and importance.

Respond 1：We sincerely appreciate your valuable suggestions regarding the abstract. In response to your feedback, we have made substantial improvements to the abstract. Specifically, in the research background section, we have expanded the discussion on the significance of urban green spaces and ecosystem services within the broader context of globalization. Additionally, we explicitly identify the research gap, highlighting that the influence of environmental knowledge and religiosity on preferences for ecosystem services remains underexplored. In the data section, we further highlight the key findings and elucidate how these results directly address the research questions, particularly with respect to their impact on air quality improvement and carbon sequestration. We have clarified the implications of these findings for policy-making and practical applications.

Comments 2： Introduction: The introduction should be expanded to situate the study within a broader global context, specifically addressing Ecosystem services and urban green spaces. This section should provide a more detailed discussion of current research trends, gaps, and the necessity of the study. Furthermore, the inclusion of relevant and up-to-date literature is necessary to strengthen the theoretical foundation and highlight the study’s significance. Clearly stating the research problem and objectives will help guide the reader toward understanding the study’s purpose.

Respond 2：I sincerely appreciate the valuable feedback you provided on my paper. In response to your suggestions, I have made comprehensive revisions to the introduction, expanding on the global context of the research, particularly regarding the significance of ecosystem services (ES) and urban green spaces (UGS), while also further elucidating current research trends and gaps. Furthermore, I have strengthened the theoretical foundation by incorporating the latest relevant literature, thereby providing better support for the research background, and have clarified the research questions and objectives to assist readers in clearly understanding the purpose and significance of this study.

Comments 3： Literature Review: The literature review should go beyond listing data types. Instead, it must provide a structured explanation of the research framework and methodology.

The discussion should clearly delineate the research gaps and justify the selection of data and methodological approaches, ultimately leading to the study’s research framework. The way to map the research framework is to refer to 10.1016/j.apgeog.2024.103472 or 10.1186/s40494-024-01497-7. It will make all your analytics more clear for the audience's understanding.

Respond 3：We have restructured and expanded the literature review to provide a more comprehensive explanation of the research framework and methodology. This revision highlights the research gaps more clearly and justifies the selection of data and methodological approaches that lead to the development of our study's research framework.

Comments 4： Methodology: The research methods section lacks quantitative formulae for the applied econometric models. Including explicit equations for the statistical methods used will enhance the rigor and transparency of the analysis.

Respond 4：We have revised the "Statistical Analysis" section to incorporate the relevant econometric equations for the statistical methods used in this study. Specifically, we have included the following:

1. Principal Component Factor Analysis (PCA): The formula for PCA, including the eigenvalue decomposition of the covariance matrix, has been explicitly included to provide clarity on how we reduced the dimensionality of the data.
2. Independent Sample t-test: We have now added the equation for the t-statistic, which is used to compare the means of independent groups (e.g., gender, age groups).
3. One-Way ANOVA: The formula for calculating the F-statistic in one-way ANOVA has been provided, along with the explanation of how we examined differences in ESSP across various socio-demographic variables.
4. Regression Analysis: We have detailed the general formula for the regression model used in the study and explained how we performed stepwise regression analysis, including the formula for calculating the AIC.
5. Variance Inflation Factor (VIF): The equation for VIF has been included to assess multicollinearity in our regression models.
6. Two-Way ANOVA: The formula for the F-statistic in two-way ANOVA has been added, along with an explanation of how we examined interactions between socio-demographic variables and environmental knowledge.

Comments 5：Table 1 and relevant indicators' interpretation better to move to section 3, as the data acquisition part. This comment depends on the authors' judgment.

Respond 5：Thank you for your valuable feedback. We appreciate your suggestion to move Table 1 and the relevant indicators' interpretation to Section 3, as part of the data acquisition discussion. However, after careful consideration, we believe that the current placement of the table aligns better with the overall structure and flow of the manuscript. We feel it serves its purpose most effectively in its present position, helping to contextualize the analysis prior to the detailed discussion of data acquisition in Section 3.

Comments 6：Figure Quality: The clarity and readability of Figure 4 need significant improvement. The text and visual elements should be enhanced for better readability and visual impact.

Respond 6：We have completed the revisions for Figure 4. The clarity and readability have been significantly improved by enhancing both the text and visual elements, ensuring better readability and greater visual impact

Comments 7： Discussion: The discussion section should be more explicitly connected to the research questions and engage in deeper dialogue with existing literature. It is essential to contextualize the findings within the broader academic discourse and respond to the study’s initial research questions to reinforce the study’s contributions.

Respond 7：Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have made the following revisions based on your suggestions:

1. Connection to Research Questions: We have clarified the direct connection between our findings and the research questions, emphasizing how the preference for regulating and cultural ecosystem services reflects the growing value placed on long-term ecological sustainability and quality of life.
2. Engagement with Literature: We have strengthened our engagement with existing studies, referencing work from South Africa, Spain, and the Central Alps, which support our findings. Additionally, we’ve enhanced the discussion on the MA framework, providing evidence that our results align with its categorization of ecosystem services.
3. Contextualization of Findings: The revised discussion more explicitly places our findings within the broader academic discourse, particularly focusing on the role of Knowledge of Environmental Ecology (KEE) in shaping ecosystem service preferences across demographic groups.
4. Clarification of Contributions: We have clarified how our study contributes to the literature by emphasizing the impact of KEE on recognizing non-obvious ecosystem services and how our results align with current trends in the valuation of urban green spaces.

We hope these revisions address your concerns and improve the clarity of our discussion. Thank you again for your insightful comments.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised manuscript improved a lot and is suitable for publication. And the writing citation format and image pixel could improved. 

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors: The revised manuscript improved a lot and is suitable for publication. And the writing citation format and image pixel could improved. 

Respond: We sincerely appreciate your valuable feedback. In response to your suggestions, Citation format: We have thoroughly reviewed the reference list and ensured that all citations are meticulously formatted in strict accordance with the journal’s style guidelines, implementing the necessary adjustments to ensure consistency throughout the manuscript. Image quality: We have resolved the pixel resolution issues of the images and made necessary revisions in both the revised and formal versions to ensure they meet the required clarity and resolution standards for publication. We sincerely appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated to reviewing our manuscript, and we will promptly incorporate these revisions.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper titled "Exploring the influence of knowledge, education, and religiosity on public preferences for ecosystem services: a case study of urban green spaces" presents a comprehensive analysis of factors influencing ecosystem services social preferences, with a particular focus on the roles of environmental and ecological knowledge and religiosity.  The perspective of the chosen topic is innovative and the authors tried to design a questionnaire to collect the data and adopted statistical analysis for further research. However, this paper, in general, has some gaps for further clarity.

1)The research theoretical framework is less scientifically designed, resulting in a lack of innovation and credibility. Ecological knowledge, religiosity, and educational level may be related. To address this issue, this paper lacks an adequate theoretical framework, does not hypothesize the possible interactions and effects, and does not provide in-depth analysis and elaboration, leading to certain shortcomings in the results.

2) The pre-survey questionnaire was selected for undergraduate students, and the pre-survey sample selection has limitations that may affect the validity of the follow-up survey.

3) In Tab. 2, the data of different age samples in the survey sample are incorrect, and careful verification is recommended.

4) The paper studies UGB, but the survey population includes a large number of rural residents who may not perceive the value of UGB ecosystem services as strongly as urban residents, so this classification does not play a significant role in the thesis.

 

5) Fewer recent papers were cited in the literature review, making it difficult to provide a comprehensive overview of recent advances.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are a small number of areas where further improvement in the expression of English is needed.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript explored the impacts of knowledge, education, and religiosity on public preferences for the ecosystem services in the urban green spaces in China using questionnaire survey and traditional statistical methods. This work is of significance for insights into the regional differences of the ecosystem services in the urban green spaces and improving the allocation of land resources. However, there are some problems with the manuscript.

Comments and suggestions are as follows,

1. Spatial accessibility to the ecosystem services in urban green spaces is an essential factor for the public preferences proposed by authors. But this study did not considered the important factor for exploring the impact mechanism of the public preferences.

2. Individual perceptions of the accessibility to ecological services in urban green spaces should be included in the questionnaire. Additionally, the online questionnaire survey based solely on paid answers may be difficult to guarantee the objectivity and reliability of the results. There may be subjective differences in how participants rate the importance of each ecosystem service. It is suggested to supplement other survey methods, such as the access trajectory data of ecological services.

3. The spatial representativeness and reliability of the samples are questionable for the urban green spaces in China, especially in the western region, as shown in Figure 1. This point determines the reliability of this study.

4. An uncertainty of this study caused by data or methods being used should be discussed further.

5. The abbreviations should be defined the first time they appear in the main text, such as lines 50, 68 and 74.

6. The map scale of Figure 1 is missing.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The language of this manuscript needs careful editing to improve readability.