Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article is very interesting and relevant. The reviewer hopes that the comments below will help to significantly improve the quality of the article.

1）  Line11，the abstract about the abbreviation “PA” should be explained at its first appearance.

2）  Line34-Line35, the first part of Introduction reviews the statistics of MVPA for elderly in various countries and databases. The statistics for the UK should also be about the elderly. However, in the article, it is "16% of men and 12% of women", which only describes the situation of men and women, is there a mistake? Please check it.

3）  Figure 2 has some display problems due to typography.

4）  This review focuses on the landscape characteristics of green space and physical activity of the elderly. The word "green space" is used in the abstract and keywords, but the search term "green open space" is limited in the literature search. The concepts of “urban open space”, “green space”, and “open space” are vaguely defined. Is there a concept of "green open space"? Is the literature search method reasonable?

5）  The conclusion and discussion sections all mention different types of green space and the authors suggest "involve a wider scope of green space on top of neighborhood green space and parks”. Does the text need to introduce the classification and scope of "green space"?

Author Response

Thank you for the insightful comments. I have responsed to each of your comments as follows. I hope the quality of the manuscript is improved after the revision. 

1) Line 11, we’ve added the full words for PA in the abstract.

2) Line 34-35, we replaced with more accurate physical activity data of the older adults from another literature: “In England, only 47% of older adults (65-74 years old) met the recommended level of physical activity according to a 2012 national survey”. (Lines 39-40 in the updated version of the manuscript)

3) We’ve adjusted the typography. Hopefully this time it is readable.

4) It's wise to remind us of the terms’ inconsistent usage. Although they are frequently used interchangeably, the terms "open space," "green open space," and "green space" differ slightly. Among them, "open space" is a wider-scope term meaning "any open piece of land that is undeveloped (has no buildings or other built structures) and is accessible to the public. Green space, schoolyards, playgrounds, public seating areas, public plazas, and vacant lots” are examples of open space [1]. In fact, I found no differences in definitions between the terms "green space" and "green open space" in the literature. "Green space" is defined as "land that is partially or entirely covered with grass, trees, shrubs, or other vegetation," with examples such as "parks, community gardens, and cemeteries." [1]. In respect of "green open space", it is defined as "hills, fields, semi-natural areas, beaches, lakes, green corridors, country parks, protected areas, and so on" in  [2, p. 9]. Nonetheless, in [3]–[6], the terms "green open space" and "open green space" are used interchangeably for green space. As a result, it appears that "green space," "green open space," and "open green space" all refer to the same meaning "accessible areas within open spaces that involve green elements" [7]. However, in order to avoid inconsistency and misunderstanding, I have changed the terms to "green and open space" and added a footnote explaining the definition on line 62.

At the meantime, the literature search is credible. The original keywords for the literature search were also related to green and open space, including "parks, recreational", "Gardens", "landscape", "nature", "wilderness", "outdoor", and "plaza". The term "green open space" in section 2 of the first version of the manuscript was incorrect.

5) It is helpful to explain the classification and scope of “green and open space”. We added sentences on lines 520-524: “Not only different types of green space, such as formal green and open spaces and informal ones like all kinds of leftover spaces and shared spaces, can be considered, but also different geographic scales. In addition, a wider range of factors, such as ecosystem concepts, stormwater concepts, climate, community ownership, etc., can be addressed.” Changes are also applied in the conclusion section: “such as all kinds of leftover spaces and shared spaces” on line 594. I hope the revision helps clarify the meaning of types and scope of green and open space.

 

Reference for the reviewer’s comments:

[1]   R. 01 US EPA, ‘What is Open Space/Green Space? | Urban Environmental Program in New England’, 2017. https://www3.epa.gov/region1/eco/uep/openspace.html (accessed May 06, 2019).

[2]   V. Žlender and S. Gemin, ‘Testing urban dwellers’ sense of place towards leisure and recreational peri-urban green open spaces in two European cities’, Cities, vol. 98, p. 102579, Mar. 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2019.102579.

[3]   M. Khotdee, W. Singhirunnusorn, and N. Sahachaisaeree, ‘Effects of Green Open Space on Social Health and Behaviour of Urban Residents: A Case Study of Communities in Bangkok’, Procedia - Soc. Behav. Sci., vol. 36, pp. 449–455, 2012, doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.03.049.

[4]   V. Shanker Singh, D. Narayan Pandey, and P. Chaudhry, ‘Urban Forests and Open Green Spaces: Lessons for Jaipur, Rajasthan, India’, Rspcb, vol. 1, Jan. 2010.

[5]   C. M. Konieczny, ‘Economic Benefits of Visually Appealing Outdoor Environments: Tree Canopy and Open Green spaces’, p. 10.

[6]   ‘The Impact of Green Open Space on Community Attachment—A Case Study of Three Communities in Beijing’, Dec. 2017, Accessed: Dec. 21, 2017. [Online]. Available: http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/9/4/560/htm

[7]   M. Rakhshandehroo, S. Afshin, and M. J. Mohd Yusof, ‘Terminology of Urban Open and Green Spaces’, presented at the 11th ASEAN Postgraduate Seminar, APGS, 2017, pp. 9–16.

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments:

I found this paper well structured, vey interesting and relevant, especially for the purposes of this journal and for the  scientific debate on green spaces, well-being and quality of urban environment. However, I think that it could be improved, by addressing these following (minor) points of attention.  

Title: I encourage the authors to reflect on the title and meaning of “Landscape correlates”. This word is also frequently used in the text and often it is used as a synonym for landscape features or characteristics. In my opinion, it would be better to use the same term in order to avoid misunderstandings.

Introduction:

·        Please, Add some lines on the structure of work and a summary of the results.

Methods:

Line 100: Which researcher?

107, 113: The author or authors? We?

Section 2.2: add a list of journals selected

Line 154: Figure 1: add caption

Lines 191-208: not readable! Figure 2 covers the text. Figure 2 is  missing the caption

 Results:

Line 250: Is the area of gravel a negative or not significant ? in table 2 seems not significant. In addition you claimed that “Only one objective landscape measure was found to be negatively correlated with leisure time PA, which was the area of gravel and GVI” (lines 254-255). Please, clarify!

Table 3: in my opinion it could be an additional material intending as an appendix.

Section 3.3, lines 278-285: there is no need to express values in terms of percentages. I do not think it is meaningful with such a small sample of papers examined

 

Discussion:

In my opinion the meaning of your findings, particularly in relation to international research and policy debate, is not clear. Topics for future research have been identified. The possible fields of application of this study have not been addressed. Please, expand this  section on strengths and weaknesses of the work, implications of your work for urban policy and agendas.

Table 5: not readable! the text covers the table.

 

Conclusion:

Lines 533-542: this part has already been discussed in the previous section. In my opinion this section could be merged with the discussion.  

Author Response

Thank you for the insightful comments. I have responsed to each of your comments as follows. I hope the quality of the manuscript is improved after the revision. 

Title 

It is imperative that the term "landscape correlates" be clarified. The term "landscape correlates" is commonly used in the environmental conservation literature, particularly in relation to habitat distribution [1], [2]. The term refers to large-scale landscape characteristics including ecological province, (forest) productivity, forest fragmentation, land use, and road distance [3]. In this review, it is thus inappropriate to use the term "landscape correlates." Landscape characteristics is a better term to indicate “places, land use, and single and multiple landscape elements” [4]. Therefore, we revise the manuscript by consistently employing "landscape characteristics" throughout the texts.

Introduction

The lines on the structure of the article and a summary of the results are added as follows: “The systematic review begins with a search and selection of relevant literature. The results section begins by describing the characteristics of the selected studies and then organizes the findings into objectively measured and perceived landscape characteristics that are correlated with the elderly's PA. Following is the discussion of the results from four aspects, including the facilitators of elderly PA, the special needs of the elderly in an urban setting, the mixed findings, and limitations and suggestions for policy making, practice and future research. The conclusion is then drawn regarding the positive and negative correlations of the elderly's PA, as well as the implications of the review”. (On lines 94-102 in the updated version of the manuscript).

 

Methods

Line 100: I added the abbreviation of the researcher’s name who completed the literature search. (Line 112 in the updated version of the manuscript).

Line 107, 113: The subjective of the sentences should be “we”.

Section 2.2: I do not quite understand what it means to add a list of journals in the “study selection criteria” section.

Line 154: The caption of Figure 1 is added on line 162 in the updated version of the manuscript.

Line 191-208: The typography is adjusted. The caption of Figure 2 is added on line 226 in the updated version of the manuscript.

Results

Line 250: The two pavement variables not significantly correlated with elderly’s PA should be “area of pavement and area of mixed-features” instead of “area of gravel and area of mixed-features”. It is corrected on lines 264-266 in the updated version of the manuscript. Lines 254-255 should be “Only two objective landscape measures were found to be negatively correlated with leisure time PA, which were the area of gravel and GVI” (Lines 268-269 in the updated version of the manuscript).

Table 3: I have included the search strategy as an additional material.

Section 3.3: lines 278-285: I have deleted the percentages (lines 293--295 in the updated version of the manuscript).

Discussion

We expanded section 4.4 to include implications for future research, policy making and practice. For policy making insights and practical application, we expansively discussed several aspects on lines 545-569, and added a brief summary of them in the conclusion section on lines 583-590 in the updated version of the manuscript.

Table 5: I changed the typography, and hopefully the table is readable.

Conclusion

Lines 533-542: We merged this part in the discussion section.

 

Reference for the response of reviewer’s comments:

[1]   M. B. Kolozsvary and R. K. Swihart, ‘Habitat fragmentation and the distribution of amphibians: patch and landscape correlates in farmland’, Can. J. Zool., vol. 77, no. 8, pp. 1288–1299, Nov. 1999, doi: 10.1139/z99-102.

[2]   L. R. Leggieri, M. L. Guichón, and M. H. Cassini, ‘Landscape correlates of the distribution of coypu Myocastor coypus (Rodentia, Mammalia) in Argentinean Pampas’, Ital. J. Zool., vol. 78, no. 1, pp. 124–129, Mar. 2011, doi: 10.1080/11250003.2010.510148.

[3]   K. Riitters, K. Potter, B. V. Iannone III, C. Oswalt, S. Fei, and Q. Guo, ‘Landscape correlates of forest plant invasions: A high-resolution analysis across the eastern United States’, Divers. Distrib., vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 274–284, 2018, doi: 10.1111/ddi.12680.

[4]   Y. Meng and H. Xing, ‘Exploring the relationship between landscape characteristics and urban vibrancy: A case study using morphology and review data’, Cities, vol. 95, p. 102389, Dec. 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2019.102389.