Analysis of Outdoor Activity Space-Use Preferences in Rural Communities: An Example from Puxiu and Yuanyi Village in Shanghai
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
After reading the manuscript “Analysis of Outdoor Activity Space Use Preferences in Rural Communities: An Example from Puxiu and Yuanyi Village in Shanghai”, I highlight next remarks, some of them already reported:
· Research aim and a short description of the methodology followed were omitted in the Abstract which cannot exceed a maximum of 200 words.
· Criteria to select the two villages under study was not revealed. An overview of the whole the methodology is required to connect all methods, analyses and surveys conducted. In this sense, an introductory paragraph at the beginning of Section 2 is suggested. Furthermore, it is unclear how aspects covered by the survey (whose results were shown in Section 3) were appointed. Vague definition distinguishes some points examined in Section 3 as stated below.
· Why are respondents older than 50 years? Authors should justify why this criterion does not bias the study. Table 2 should be presented immediately after its description (line 180). Size references to feature small, medium-sized and large spaces must be provided in Figures 4 and 6. Same with close, moderate, far distance (Figure 5); quiet, moderate, noisy (Figure 8) and enclosure, semi-enclosed and openness (Figure 8). Please further develop the purpose of examining sheltering facilities (Figure 8).
· Relevant conclusions from findings, limitations encountered and future lines of research should be discussed in the last section. Contribution in the field was not found.
· Miscellaneous comments. Visualization of figures should be enhanced. Definition of axes in charts is necessary, i.e., uncertainty characterizes Figure 3. Contradictions were found between the text and Figures, i.e., line 232 versus Figure 5
The study seems excessively customized to the two selected villages where a survey was conducted which undermines scientific soundness and potential application to other geographical areas inside/outside China. For instance, section 4 compares both places. The manuscript should hence outline a common methodology applicable anywhere, whilst the two Chinese villages could serve as case study. Theoretical and practical implications of the research were not highlighted.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for the reviewer’s comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Analysis of Outdoor Activity Space Use Preferences in Rural Communities: An Example from Puxiu and Yuanyi Village in Shanghai”(Manuscript ID: land-1816127). Those comments are valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper and the essential guiding significance to our research. We have studied the comments carefully and have made corrections which we hope meet with approval. Revised portions are marked in red in the revised manuscript. The leading corrections in the manuscript and the responses to the reviewer’s comments are as follows:
Point 1: Research aim and a short description of the methodology followed were omitted in the Abstract which cannot exceed a maximum of 200 words.
Response 1: We are very grateful to the Reviewers for this suggestion. This comment is very reasonable. We neglected to include research aim and a short description of the methodology in the abstract, which made it difficult for the readers to have a general understanding of the whole article. Related description was added in Abstract. L.12-19—“In order to understand urban-rural differences as well as inter-rural difference of outdoor activity spaces preferences in today’s China, so as to optimize the planning and design of public space optimization in rural communities, this study taking Puxiu and Yuanyi Village in the suburbs of Shanghai as examples, executed field questionnaire surveys to figure out villagers’ general preferences for outdoor spaces as well as their personal diversities.”.
Point 2: Criteria to select the two villages under study was not revealed. An overview of the whole the methodology is required to connect all methods, analyses and surveys conducted. In this sense, an introductory paragraph at the beginning of Section 2 is suggested.
Response 2: We are very grateful to the Reviewers for this suggestion. Your suggestion helps the article become more reasonable and scientific. Following your suggestion, we added a paragraph describing the overall study design in Section 2.1. L.97-104 to explain the methodology of the study as well as the criteria of village selecting—"taking Shanghai as an example, we planned to conduct a field survey to investigate the demand for public activity space in rural communities, so as to compare its differences from urban areas. Meanwhile, considering the diversities in the type of villages, we conducted pilot surveys to several villages, and selected two villages with different types of industries as well as different life styles as the subjects of the formal investigation. The specific conditions of the two selected villages—Puxiu Village that is taking tourism as the main industry, and Yuanyi Village that still remains on farming as the main industry, are as follows.”
Thanks again for the offer to make our logic better.
Point 3: Why are respondents older than 50 years? Authors should justify why this criterion does not bias the study. Table 2 should be presented immediately after its description (line 180). Size references to feature small, medium-sized and large spaces must be provided in Figures 4 and 6. Same with close, moderate, far distance (Figure 5); quiet, moderate, noisy (Figure 8) and enclosure, semi-enclosed and openness (Figure 8). Please further develop the purpose of examining sheltering facilities (Figure 8).
Response 3: We are grateful for the reviewer's suggestion, which was important in enhancing the scientificity of this study. Actually, no age limit was set for the survey, but we haven’t encountered any younger residents in the public space during the 10 times field investigation including daytime and evening, weekdays and weekends. We have also questioned the respondents for the reason. According to them, the two villages, just like the majority of the rural communities in China, had a considerable high population aging degree, the number of young residents were very limited in number, and the young generations who came to visit their parents would generally stay in their parents' homes instead of go to the public spaces. Meanwhile, according to our former studies in urban communities in Shanghai, the main purpose of younger adults gathering together in public spaces was to have activities with their kids. As there were also not many children living in the rural communities as well, we guess the driving force for younger adults to go to public spaces might also be decreased. The related explanation was also added to the article in Section 3.1. L.166-175.
We moved Table 2 next to the description of the information of the respondents.
Section 3.1. L.200-205
Regarding the references of the space descriptions in Figures 4, 5, 6, 8, the options were explained in the original questionnaire, but we haven’t made it clear in the manuscript, thank you for your reminder. We have added explanations of the options under these figures. And we also adjusted the font size in these figures to ensure the readers can clearly read the words.
We added three notes in “spatial scale” to explain “small, medium-sized, large”.
Section 3.3. Figure 4 L.253-255
We added three notes in “distance from home” to explain “close, moderate distance, far”.
Section 3.3. Figure 5 L.260-261
We added three notes in “greening area” to explain “small area, moderate area, large area”.
We added two notes in “greening function” to explain “ornamental, productive”.
Section 3.3. Figure 6 L.275-276
We added three notes in “site noise” to explain “quiet, moderate, noisy”.
We added three notes in “openness” to explain “enclosure, semi-enclosed, openness”.
Section 3.3. Figure 8 L.296-297
We added two notes in “number of participants” to explain “small groups, large groups”.
We added two notes in “activity status” to explain “static, dynamic”.
We added three notes in “participation forms” to explain “ornamental, demonstrative, participatory”.
Section 3.3. Figure 9 L.316-317
Regarding the purpose of the survey on sheltering facilities, it was because we have found that opinions on whether or not to have shading facilities were quite divided in the pilot survey— some people preferred structures such as pavilions that can provide sunshade and shelter from the rain, yet some other people disliked them because they wanted to highlight the openness of public space. Therefore, we wanted to further understand the opinions of the local residents.
Point 4: Relevant conclusions from findings, limitations encountered and future lines of research should be discussed in the last section. Contribution in the field was not found.
Response 4: We are very grateful to the reviewers for this suggestion. This comment is very reasonable. Following your suggestion, we have strengthened the description of background, findings, limitations and future work plan of research in the last section.
L534-545—background: In conclusion, along with the proposed strategy of rural revitalization and improvement of rural habitat environment quality, the design of outdoor activity space in rural communities is attracting more and more attention. However, it is currently facing problems such as the homogenized design and the lack of attention to the real demands of local residents. Meanwhile, urbanization trend of spatial forms has caused problems in the construction of many new rural activity spaces, leading to a significant decrease in villagers' sense of identity and active use of space. Furthermore, the villagers, as the main users of the rural public space, were one of the essential elements concerning the direction of outdoor activity space optimization, but in China's current rural community design, a human-centered approach to public space design was still lacking.
L543-553—findings: So we recorded the using status of outdoor activity spaces in two villages around Shanghai through field surveys, and analyzed the space using preferences of the villagers. The result suggested that the demands of activity space of the countryside were significantly different from those of the city. To be specific, villagers would pay more attention to the practicality and cost saving of the activity space and facilities, and they preferred rustic elements in aesthetics and have great diversities in personal choices of space and activities. It was also found that the personal choices of residents’ preferences could be influenced by their personal attributes such as gender, age, and occupation.
L554-560—contributions: The findings of the study could serve as a reference for the optimization of public space in rural communities, and the suggested strategies regarding the joint participation of designers and villagers might be helpful to make a better combination of "top-down" and "bottom-up" planning in the practical works. To be specific, the study results might help to make the relevant design in villages fit better to the real demands of local residents, improve the social and economic benefits of the construction investment, and promote the overall human living environment quality in rural communities.
L561-566—limitations: On the other hand, the study also met considerable limitations. Firstly, because of the pandemic and travel policy restrictions, the field investigations met limitations in terms of the number and scope of the survey sample. Meanwhile, the two village in the study were selected to demonstrate that people living in different villages under industrial transformation could have different demands for public activity space due to different life styles, but they might not be representative of the whole condition in rural China.
L566-570—future plan: We would like to expand the types of villages and the sample size of investigation and questionnaire in the future study, and verify the effect of relevant spatial optimization methods in practice as well, so as to provide more evidence-based references for the planning and design of outdoor activity spaces in China's rural communities.
Point 5: Miscellaneous comments. Visualization of figures should be enhanced. Definition of axes in charts is necessary, i.e., uncertainty characterizes Figure 3. Contradictions were found between the text and Figures, i.e., line 232 versus Figure 5.
Response 5: We are very grateful to the reviewers for this suggestion. First of all, we apologize for the lack of rigor in the original article. We have added definition to the axes of Figure 3 (%, L.214-215), and the vertical coordinate represented the percentage. 73.53 should be 74.53 in the text (formerly L.232, now L.256). Thanks again for the correction.
Point 6: The study seems excessively customized to the two selected villages where a survey was conducted which undermines scientific soundness and potential application to other geographical areas inside/outside China. For instance, section 4 compares both places. The manuscript should hence outline a common methodology applicable anywhere, whilst the two Chinese villages could serve as case study. Theoretical and practical implications of the research were not highlighted.
Response 6: We are very grateful to the reviewers for this suggestion. We have taken your comments seriously. In the context of rural revitalization, many villages originally engaged in agriculture were transforming their industries to tertiary industries such as tourism, which also brought about changes in the life style of villagers. Therefore, based on a pilot survey to over 20 villages around Shanghai, we specifically selected P and Y village, with the intention of exploring whether the differences in industrial and life style patterns would have an impact on residents' demand for public activities. A related description to the study methodology design as well as selection criteria was added to the beginning of Section 2 (L.97-104). However, although the results of this study did suggest that such a difference in people's life styles caused by the industrial transformation could led to the diversity in villagers' demands for public spaces, we still need more evidences to clarify whether it is applicable to other rural areas of China, and the case study of only two villages definitely might not be representative of the overall conditions in rural China. Therefore, a supplementary description to the limitation of the study was made in the conclusion section (L.563-566).
Finally, we want to express our gratitude again. Thank you very much for the very useful comments and help, which is very important for the improvement of our article.
We hope that the correction will meet with approval. If there are more questions, we are willing to revise them again.
Wish you all the best in the work and life.
Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions!
Yours sincerely,
Ledi Wen
Lei Sima
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This is a clear enough paper on a topic unfamilair to this reviewer but nonetheless clearly of some interest and merit. The research is largely sound - but note my question on representativeness below - and material is original. It is generally clearly written and structured.
In the introduction I think it would be useful if you could explain exactly what and where the 'new spaces' for which the results of this study are relevant are? Are they in new villages or in older villages being redesigned or expanded? This clarification is needed for readers such as myself who are rather unfamiliar with rural (?) China today.
Page 2: 'special people'. Whilst I don't think this term is offensive, it does not work very well in English. Perhaps change it to: 'needs of all groups within society'?
Page 5: a big issue for me was why there were no respondents under 50 years of age! I appreciate that younger adults are moving away but surely there are still some living in the villages? This needs clarifying as otherwise it rather undermines the representativeness of the study and its findings.
The Results, although clearly presented, were quite difficult to take in from a single read. However, I don't think there is much you can do about this and the Discussion helps here is bringing out some of the main findings.
Section 3.4. Here it seemed to me that those aged 60-79 stood out from those younger and those older together. I'm wondering why this might be.
Page 14. Interesting that you say 'coexistence of [the] rural tourism industry and the original village life'... This is good but one issue I thought you might have addressed explcitly is to what extent the demands of rural tourism in terms of village design etc are *conflicting* with the desires of 'original village life' - this could clearly be a major tension...
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for the reviewer’s comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Analysis of Outdoor Activity Space Use Preferences in Rural Communities: An Example from Puxiu and Yuanyi Village in Shanghai”(Manuscript ID: land-1816127). Those comments are valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper and the essential guiding significance to our research. We have studied the comments carefully and have made corrections which we hope meet with approval. Revised portions are marked in red in the revised manuscript. The leading corrections in the manuscript and the responses to the reviewer’s comments are as’ follows:
This is a clear enough paper on a topic unfamiliar to this reviewer but nonetheless clearly of some interest and merit. The research is largely sound - but note my question on representativeness below - and material is original. It is generally clearly written and structured.
Point 1: In the introduction I think it would be useful if you could explain exactly what and where the 'new spaces' for which the results of this study are relevant are? Are they in new villages or in older villages being redesigned or expanded? This clarification is needed for readers such as myself who are rather unfamiliar with rural (?) China today.
Response 1: We are very grateful to the Reviewers for this suggestion. Your suggestion helps the article become more reasonable and scientific. Following your suggestion, we have added explanation in the introduction that the new spaces involved in this study referred to not only the public spaces in the original old village structure, but also the new public activity spaces in the renovation of old villages and the construction of new villages, such as the court-yard space in front of the newly built houses, the waterfront space of the newly renovated river, and the square space in front of the newly built public facilities.
Section 1. L.84-89
Point 2: Page 2: 'special people'. Whilst I don't think this term is offensive, it does not work very well in English. Perhaps change it to: 'needs of all groups within society'?
Response 2: We are very grateful to the reviewers for this suggestion. The translation here was inaccurate. To avoid ambiguity and discrimination, we have revised in the manuscript and translated it into "needs of all groups within society". Thanks again for the reminder and correction.
Section 1. L.52-53
Point 3: Page 5: a big issue for me was why there were no respondents under 50 years of age! I appreciate that younger adults are moving away but surely there are still some living in the villages? This needs clarifying as otherwise it rather undermines the representativeness of the study and its findings.
Response 3: We are grateful for the reviewer's suggestion, which was important in enhancing the scientificity of this study. Actually, no age limit was set for the survey, but we haven’t encountered any younger residents in the public space during the 10 times field investigation including daytime and evening, weekdays and weekends. We have also questioned the respondents for the reason. According to them, the two villages, just like the majority of the rural communities in China, had a considerable high population aging degree, the number of young residents were very limited in number, and the young generations who came to visit their parents would generally stay in their parents' homes instead of go to the public spaces. Meanwhile, according to our former studies in urban communities in Shanghai, the main purpose of younger adults gathering together in public spaces was to have activities with their kids. As there were also not many children living in the rural communities as well, we guess the driving force for younger adults to go to public spaces might also be decreased. The related explanation was also added to the article in Section 3.1. L.166-175
Point 4: The Results, although clearly presented, were quite difficult to take in from a single read. However, I don't think there is much you can do about this and the Discussion helps here is bringing out some of the main findings.
Response 4: We are very grateful to the reviewers for this suggestion. As the questionnaire was designed based on our previous surveys on the preference of community activity spaces in urban areas and some pilot surveys in rural area, it was actually kind of complicated. Although discussion has made to summarize and refine the results, we still met difficulties in explaining some of the results. Thank you for reminding and more attention will be paid to the future research design.
Point 5: Section 3.4. Here it seemed to me that those aged 60-79 stood out from those younger and those older together. I'm wondering why this might be.
Response 5: We are very grateful to the reviewers for this suggestion. The result did suggested people in the sixties and seventies stood out from those younger and those older. To be specific, they showed clear preferences in small scale sites and practical style design. We suggested the reason of their choice might be a result of the fact that they might be responsible for the maintaining of the public spaces—as these people were the most frequent users of the space, and considering the convenience and sustainability of the long-term maintenance management, they might choose a site limited in size and with a simple design to reduce the burden of maintenance work.
Section 3.4.
Point 6: Page 14. Interesting that you say 'coexistence of the rural tourism industry and the original village life'... This is good but one issue I thought you might have addressed explicitly is to what extent the demands of rural tourism in terms of village design etc are *conflicting* with the desires of 'original village life'—this could clearly be a major tension...
Response 6: We are very grateful to the Reviewers for this suggestion. We haven’t made it clear in the manuscript. In this study, although we supposed that there might be conflicts between the development of rural tourism and the original needs of rural life, the result also suggested that the spatial demands of rural residents might change with the development of tourism, thus reconciling the conflicts. For example, the survey found that if the villagers were engaged in service industry works rather than farming, a desire for having leisure activities and sports instead of just resting could be enhanced, which agree with the spatial demands of visitors from urban areas. Therefore, in these villages, plazas and sport venues could be planned to meet the needs of both the residents and visitors. Yet in villages where agriculture was the main industry, the situation could be different.
Section 4.3. L.514-522
Finally, we want to express our gratitude again. Thank you very much for the very useful comments and help in this article, which is very important for the improvement of our article.
We hope that the correction will meet with approval. If there are more questions, we are willing to revise them again.
Wish you all the best in the work and life.
Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions!
Yours sincerely,
Ledi Wen
Lei Sima
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
· An overview of the whole the methodology is required to connect all methods, analyses and surveys conducted. In this sense, an introductory paragraph at the beginning of Section 2 is suggested. Furthermore, it is unclear how aspects covered by the survey (whose results were shown in Section 3) were appointed.
· Main limitation of the study refers to the age of respondents (over 50 years) which bias findings because young people mostly use outdoor activity spaces.
· Miscellaneous comments. Definition of axes in ALL charts is necessary.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
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.
