Challenges and Stakeholder Perspectives on Implementing Ecological Designs in Green Public Spaces: A Case Study of Hue City, Vietnam
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Overall, I liked this paper very much. It's a well-written, solid study. It was interesting to see that the barriers to ecological green infrastructure are the same in Vietnam as they are in cities around the world! With that said, I'm not sure that the paper is presenting anything very new, given that these findings are the same as we see elsewhere. It's more confirmatory than novel. I still think it's worth publishing though, in that it adds geographic diversity to the literature in this area. A few comments and suggestions below:
1. It’s not clear how the participants’ responses are related to the three parks in the study. The responses seem more generalized to any/all parks. Can you be more clear in how these parks relate to the study design? Were the photo prompts taken from those three parks? Were the participants associated with those three parks? And, did the results differ among the three parks? As it is currently presented, I feel like the three parks as “case studies” are irrelevant and you could leave the sections describing them out of the paper. If they are important, please clarify the questions above, and return in the Discussion to how these three park “case studies” shed light on the questions. If they are not important, I suggest dropping them from the paper.
2. Were respondents given the option of choosing the landscape as it is, or only the two alternative landscapes? If the former, how many chose not to change it at all?
3. I wonder if the respondents were accurate in their perceptions of public opinion. They did mention the public being critical of situations in which it seemed that the parks were being inadequately maintained. But this is often just a vocal few. I have noticed in my own work that public officials are very nervous about how people will respond to such changes but most people are actually supportive in the end. Is there any data on public preferences in this city?
There are small grammatical and vocabulary errors throughout the paper but overall it is very readable and I expect that running it through a good software program will catch most of the errors.
Author Response
- It’s not clear how the participants’ responses are related to the three parks in the study. The responses seem more generalized to any/all parks. Can you be more clear in how these parks relate to the study design? Were the photo prompts taken from those three parks? Were the participants associated with those three parks? And, did the results differ among the three parks? As it is currently presented, I feel like the three parks as “case studies” are irrelevant and you could leave the sections describing them out of the paper. If they are important, please clarify the questions above, and return in the Discussion to how these three park “case studies” shed light on the questions. If they are not important, I suggest dropping them from the paper.
Answer: thank you for your valuable feedback. Initially, one of our intentions was to clarify the differences in attitudes among stakeholders in the three specific parks. However, as outlined in your feedback, it became apparent that the responses were more generalised and did not reveal the differences across the parks. Thus, we have decided to omit detailed descriptions of the specific parks in the paper and focus on the broader trends in urban green spaces, as suggested. We provided a new paragraph that explains this vision (lines 180-184).
- Were respondents given the option of choosing the landscape as it is, or only the two alternative landscapes? If the former, how many chose not to change it at all?
Answer: since our aim is to assess the extent to which stakeholders prefer the implementation of ecological designs in their parks, we did not include a 'no change at all' option in the interview. Respondents were presented with two alternative landscapes to provide their preferences and perceptions of ecological designs in the context of parks. The photo of original park conditions was included in the sheet only for the better visual orientation of interviewers so they can compare images.
- I wonder if the respondents were accurate in their perceptions of public opinion. They did mention the public being critical of situations in which it seemed that the parks were being inadequately maintained. But this is often just a vocal few. I have noticed in my own work that public officials are very nervous about how people will respond to such changes but most people are actually supportive in the end. Is there any data on public preferences in this city?
Answer: we acknowledge that stakeholders' perceptions of public opinion are subjective and may not be entirely accurate. This subjectivity arises from the limited involvement of the community in urban planning and public green space designs in Vietnam. Originally, we had intended to conduct a survey involving the public, but due to various reasons, including the challenges posed by COVID-19, this survey could not take place. As a result, our study has certain limitations, thus we suggest conducting further research in the conclusion section (Lines 625-638).
Reviewer 2 Report
Changes in paradigme takes long periods and researching stakholders ideas, perspectives and perfomances sounds appropriate to broaden consensus for the future of sustainable landscape design and management.
Very interesting approach of the historical peculiarities and influences from other cultures in urban green spaces in Vietnam. Also, up to date the Methodology applied such as “Cues to care (CTC)” where landscape elements are immediately recognizable as designed, and that signal continuing human presence to care for a landscape sounds appropriate for this study.
Authors considered that “ecosystem services are not always a top priority for stakeholders, even in developed countries (435)”. Revisor suggest authors, if possible, to study examples that are taking place in cities such as Paris or Barcelona. In the last two decade these cities have been committed to implement ecological design in public green spaces and the results might be interesting for your research. Nevertheless, the Singapore case is appropriate to ensure the case study of Vietnam (Hue City).
Author Response
Changes in paradigm takes long periods and researching stakeholders ideas, perspectives and performance sounds appropriate to broaden consensus for the future of sustainable landscape design and management.
Very interesting approach of the historical peculiarities and influences from other cultures in urban green spaces in Vietnam. Also, up to date the Methodology applied such as “Cues to care (CTC)” where landscape elements are immediately recognizable as designed, and that signal continuing human presence to care for a landscape sounds appropriate for this study.
Authors considered that “ecosystem services are not always a top priority for stakeholders, even in developed countries (435)”. Revisor suggest authors, if possible, to study examples that are taking place in cities such as Paris or Barcelona. In the last two decade, these cities have been committed to implementing ecological design in public green spaces and the results might be interesting for your research. Nevertheless, the Singapore case is appropriate to ensure the case study of Vietnam (Hue City)
Answer: Thank you very much for your positive comment and valuable suggestion. We added some examples (references) from Spain and other countries into the introduction section (please refer to new paragraphs in the introduction section, lines 73-77).
Reviewer 3 Report
Please find the pdf document attached for detailed comments.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
There are minor typographical errors in the paper. These minor errors can be corrected by proofreading.
Author Response
. It is noticeable that the literature review on ecological design and ecosystem services given in the introduction is very limited. Strengthening the literature section in the paper will enrich the evaluations made in the discussion and conclusion sections.
Answer: thank you for the valuable suggestion. Following your recommendation to enhance the comprehensiveness of this section, we have incorporated recommended references based on empirical findings from other relevant research. Please see new paragraphs (lines 53-60, 72-109).
Other recommended references for reinforcing the statement on multiple functions of parks (e,g Molla, 2015) were also incorporated.
- Under the heading "2.2. Semi-structured interview with the assistance of designed images", it would be good to add a paragraph explaining the advantages/disadvantages of using photo-based questions as a supportive tool for semi-structured interviews, drawing on the literature.
Answer: we added a paragraph to explain the advantages of using photo-based questions (lines 228-230).
- There are minor typographical errors in the paper. These minor errors can be corrected by proofreading.
Answer: thank you for your valuable comment. We corrected typographical errors.
- The heading "Urban green spaces in Vietnam - a case of Hue City" (two consecutive
paragraphs above) should be moved under "2.1. Case study" because it looks like it is not in the right place.
Answer: we have revised this section and relocated some content to Section 2.2 - Case Study. However, we have retained a portion of the review about urban green spaces in Vietnam within the introduction section. We believe that this context is crucial in framing our study within the specific Vietnamese urban landscape. Nevertheless, we removed the detailed information about each park and added a new paragraph which would allow to better understand the suggested methodology (lines 180-186).
- The authors are aware of the practical contribution of the study to science, which is fine, but they must also be aware of the theoretical contribution of the study to the theories of ecological design and ecosystem services. It is thought that the conclusion section of the paper needs to be improved in this respect. Again, a paragraph explaining the limitations of the research should be added to the conclusion section of the paper. Thus, the study has been instructive for future researchers using similar research method.
Answer: we acknowledge several limitations in our study and explained them in the conclusion section and suggested further studies (lines 624-637).
Thank you for your suggested articles. They are very useful. We included them as references.
