The Potential Health Benefits of Urban Tree Planting Suggested through Immersive Environments

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors evaluate the wellbeing benefits and safety concerns of participants using virtual reconstructions of 10 urban parks in Bradford, UK, to simulate changes in woodland cover. They demonstrate an approach to the planning of urban green spaces using virtual reality simulations. This topic is of importance in the circle of land use and tourism development.

However, in order to make the manuscript published more smoothly, the author needs to make some supplement and modifications.

(1) In the Line 114 Methodology Section, authors can tell the readers where is the Bradford, UK. How many people and how many square kolometres are there in Bradford, UK. Authors can draw a figure to introduce the study area.

(2) In the Line 114 Methodology Section, it is better that authors could tell us the age, gender and educational status, occupation even address of the recruited 10 participants, which perhaps influence the psychology perception and response.

(3) It is better that authors could tell us whether the teleportation and walk route in the visual environment and time period of the recruited 10 participants is the same or not?

(4) In the Line 114 Methodology Section, it is better that authors could tell us the distribution mode for the increased double trees. For example, in the Figure 1, in the subgraph of Emsley column, and Ture Tree number row, we can see no any trees in the southeastern part. But we can see some additional trees in the Double Tree number row of the Emsley column. Similiar situation also happened in the Castle and Trident. By the way, scale bar and north arrow should be added in the Figure 1, whcih is a basic elements for a formal map. For the Figure 2, authors need tell the readers what is the name of the building or sites in each subgraph.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Authors evaluate the wellbeing benefits and safety concerns of participants using virtual reconstructions of 10 urban parks in Bradford, UK, to simulate changes in woodland cover. They demonstrate an approach to the planning of urban green spaces using virtual reality simulations. This topic is of importance in the circle of land use and tourism development.

However, in order to make the manuscript published more smoothly, the author needs to make some supplement and modifications.

• In the Line 114 Methodology Section, authors can tell the readers where is the Bradford, UK. How many people and how many square kolometres are there in Bradford, UK. Authors can draw a figure to introduce the study area.

RESPONSE: We have now included additional detail about the urban area (population and km²) and provided a map of its location within the UK and the location of the 10 parks within the city limits (new Figure 1).

• In the Line 114 Methodology Section, it is better that authors could tell us the age, gender and educational status, occupation even address of the recruited 10 participants, which perhaps influence the psychology perception and response.

RESPONSE: All participants were students from the University of Leeds. Since we were not focused on demographic predictors of responses to the experiment, we did not collect demographic data. Instead, we note that our sample was approximately representative of the wider student body and have provided general demographic characteristics about the university student body.

(3) It is better that authors could tell us whether the teleportation and walk route in the visual environment and time period of the recruited 10 participants is the same or not?

RESPONSE: We have confirmed that the teleportation and walking tools were the same for both studies (at the start of the results: “Participants responded positively to the virtual environments and quickly grasped the teleportation and walking aspect of the controls, which were the same in both Study 1 and Study 2”).

• In the Line 114 Methodology Section, it is better that authors could tell us the distribution mode for the increased double trees. For example, in the Figure 1, in the subgraph of Emsley column, and Ture Tree number row, we can see no any trees in the southeastern part. But we can see some additional trees in the Double Tree number row of the Emsley column. Similiar situation also happened in the Castle and Trident.

RESPONSE: We have added more explanation for the approach that we took in adding trees to the landscape: “In simulating the doubling of tree numbers, our aim was to increase the tree cover in a way that might match how land managers would add trees in the landscape. To achieve this pattern, we first explored the current strategy for planting (spaced out individual trees, the presence of small, dense woodlands, or tree-lined paths) and then expanded those planting patterns. Figure 2 shows schematics and aerial imagery of three example parks with planting approaches. Emsley (142 trees present in reality) contains a block of trees in a wedge-like area of woodland in the north of the park and a thinner band of trees lining the western side of the park. In adding trees to Emsley, we added two further blocks of trees in the east and southeast of the park, and added trees lining the eastern side of the park to resemble the western edge. In Castle Street (53 trees in reality), trees are generally located around the edge of the park with some small clusters of 3-4 trees. We added trees to thicken and complete these existing lines of trees around the park edges. In Trident (82 trees in reality), trees line the outside of the park, following the paths through the park, and there are small, low density clusters of trees in the south. We added additional trees to line the paths in other parts of the park, to increase the density of the trees lining the park, and to create additional small clusters.” We hope that this text – in conjunction with the illustrative figure – is now clearer.

By the way, scale bar and north arrow should be added in the Figure 1, whcih is a basic elements for a formal map.

RESPONSE: Apologies, the maps of the parks were simplified schematics of the aerial images rather than formal GIS layers (which lack detail at this resolution). However, we have now added north arrows (all maps are oriented north) and scale bars showing 50m lengths for each of the three parks.

For the Figure 2, authors need tell the readers what is the name of the building or sites in each subgraph.

RESPONSE: We have added more detail to the legend of Figure 2 to explain what the different images show: “Figure 2: First-person views of the virtual parks. The green curve is the teleportation tool. Parks were gradually populated with more objects to create rich environments. The top row shows the simplest scenarios during the creation of the parks, the middle row shows key assets (fences, trees), and the bottom row shows the fully populated scene at Trident Park.”

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper The potential health benefits of urban tree planting suggested through immersive environments presents evaluation of the wellbeing benefits and safety concerns of participants by using virtual reconstructions of 10 urban parks in Bradford, UK. The structure of the paper is, to some point, correct organized and tables and figure are informative (please provide relevant references). The paper demonstrates and cites, partially, appropriate range of literature sources. I have to point out that I am not commenting methods used as it not my key expertise. However, I have to stress that presented research is appropriate designed and applied methods adequately described.

I have to stress that I assigned major revision as I am of the opinion that main limitations within presentation of this topical and comprehensive research/study is that reference list needs to be updated and structure improved.

Suggestions for authors:

-          Tittle: the tittle of the paper should correspond to the subject of the paper; what are “potential health benefits”? It is not clear.

-          Key words: ecology and aesthetics are mentioned only one time (within keywords), landscape and attitudes few times within the paper; consider correcting key words to be relevant to the subject of the manuscript.

-          Introduction: first paragraph is not clear; take into consideration to modify these first few sentences in order to be more comprehensible.

-          References: Reference list needs updating; (Rook, 2013 / more than 10 years; air quality /Kumar 2015….); it is suggested to the authors to update reference list, especially the data that are considering the subject of the paper, air quality, UK national data etc.); Only Fuller et al., 2007 is, as stated “support for this hypothesis…”? Also, it is mentioned Wood et al., 2018 to be relevant for the research / however it is not clear (line 166).

-          The quality of the paper could be significantly improved by adjusting the structure of the presentation - clear and precise presentation/writing style together with providing the relation to the current framework (legislative, institutional, SDGs, EU) and the view (statement, opinion…) referring to the subject of the paper could support publication of the presented research.  

-          As the Conclusion is missing consider providing it; thus, Conclusions should tie together to the other elements of the paper (I would like to remind the authors that a Conclusion should be, if possible, short; further, it should include summarized paper’s main points and does not contain any new information; also, it is advised to provide clearly future prospects within Conclusions).

-          Consider revising the paper that within the section of Abstract, Introduction and Conclusions should be emphasized practical significance of this paper, all together with providing explanation of the value of the manuscript for similar research in related fields.

-          Consider avoiding using personal pronouns “we” (line 9, 19,) etc.; please correct throughout whole paper.

To the authors is suggested to revise the paper carefully as some of the aspects of the manuscript need to be improved in order to support publication. It is recommended English proofreading. Please refer to the Journal guidelines for authors.

Author Response

The paper The potential health benefits of urban tree planting suggested through immersive environments presents evaluation of the wellbeing benefits and safety concerns of participants by using virtual reconstructions of 10 urban parks in Bradford, UK. The structure of the paper is, to some point, correct organized and tables and figure are informative (please provide relevant references). The paper demonstrates and cites, partially, appropriate range of literature sources. I have to point out that I am not commenting methods used as it not my key expertise. However, I have to stress that presented research is appropriate designed and applied methods adequately described.

I have to stress that I assigned major revision as I am of the opinion that main limitations within presentation of this topical and comprehensive research/study is that reference list needs to be updated and structure improved.

Suggestions for authors:

-          Tittle: the tittle of the paper should correspond to the subject of the paper; what are “potential health benefits”? It is not clear.

RESPONSE: The primary outcome for the paper, described in the methods and shown in Figures 4 and 5, is restorative benefit measured using a self-reported questionnaire. This is a measure of psychological restoration (an ability to rest and relax) – a potential health benefit. We have amended the abstract (“We evaluate the health benefits (restorative benefit)…”) and the introduction (“The ‘restorative benefit’ is an important health benefit provided by an urban green space and is considered as being linked with its ecological quality…”) and discussion (“…we find experimental evidence for previous work that highlighted a role for changing tree cover as a potential driver of perceived health benefits (measured as self-reported restorative benefit) in green spaces”). We hope that makes our selection of terms clearer.

-          Key words: ecology and aesthetics are mentioned only one time (within keywords), landscape and attitudes few times within the paper; consider correcting key words to be relevant to the subject of the manuscript.

RESPONSE: We have changed “ecology” to “biodiversity” and “aesthetics” to “perceptions” to better match the terms that we use in the paper. We have left “landscape”, because we feel that readers who might be interested in the paper may search for “urban landscape design” or “landscape ecology”. We have left “attitudes”, because perceptions and attitudes both reflect similar ideas of the human view of urban landscapes and, again, we feel that having that term will make the manuscript easier to find for potential readers. We hope that this is acceptable to the reviewer.

-          Introduction: first paragraph is not clear; take into consideration to modify these first few sentences in order to be more comprehensible.

RESPONSE: We have rewritten the opening paragraph to make it clearer: “A wide range of anthropogenic factors threaten the integrity of natural systems around the world, including climate change, invasive species, pollution, and land use change [1]. Concurrently, there has been a growing recognition of the value of these natu-ral systems in supporting a range of human activities, referred to as “ecosystem services” [2]. These two processes lead to a paradox in which humans rely on the landscapes that they are degrading, necessitating careful land management to ensure the sustainable use of natural resources. Such management decisions aim to create mutually beneficial sce-narios that improve the functioning of natural systems while maintaining their utility for humans (so-called “win-win scenarios”). Sustainable management of landscapes is par-ticularly complex in urban areas, where space is predominantly used for human activi-ties, intensifying the complexity of these decisions [3].”

-          References: Reference list needs updating; (Rook, 2013 / more than 10 years; air quality /Kumar 2015….); it is suggested to the authors to update reference list, especially the data that are considering the subject of the paper, air quality, UK national data etc.); Only Fuller et al., 2007 is, as stated “support for this hypothesis…”?

RESPONSE: We thank the reviewer for pointing out the older references. We have been through and updated any references >10 years old unless they are particularly notable (e.g. Fuller et al 2007, which gave rise to the hypothesis about biodiversity perceptions and health; McKinney’s work on urban biodiversity).

Also, it is mentioned Wood et al., 2018 to be relevant for the research / however it is not clear (line 166).

RESPONSE: We have clarified that the Wood et al. 2018 paper was conducted using the same 5-question restorative benefit survey in the field at the same parks that we have created for our study: “The same restorative benefit survey had been used in Wood et al. (2018) with human par-ticipants in the same parks, allowing for a direct comparison between the Wood et al. field sites and the present study’s virtual environments.”

-          The quality of the paper could be significantly improved by adjusting the structure of the presentation - clear and precise presentation/writing style together with providing the relation to the current framework (legislative, institutional, SDGs, EU) and the view (statement, opinion…) referring to the subject of the paper could support publication of the presented research.  

RESPONSE: We have added the policy context to the work in the introduction (“From a policy and practice perspective, this relatively weak evidence for links be-tween green space and human benefit is a challenge. For instance, up to 15 out of 17 Sus-tainability Development Goals (SDGs) can be addressed using urban green spaces on ur-ban issues, but research into those solutions has been limited to a small number of areas (Tate et al. 2024). The multiple dimensions of the SDGs provide a useful framework within which to plan urban enhancements to achieve a range of benefits, using green spaces as “spaces of opportunity” in cities (Lombardía and Gómez-Villarino 2023). Those opportu-nities have been operationalized into frameworks for urban greening, for example as part of the European Union’s Biodiversity Strategy for 2030. However, implementation of that strategy may be compromised by insufficient engagement with society and challenges associated with higher public participation (Hermoso et al. 2022). To enhance community engagement and co-design, large-scale pilots of citizen engagement around biodiversity in cities are underway in a variety of locations (Maes et al. 2021).”).

-          As the Conclusion is missing consider providing it; thus, Conclusions should tie together to the other elements of the paper (I would like to remind the authors that a Conclusion should be, if possible, short; further, it should include summarized paper’s main points and does not contain any new information; also, it is advised to provide clearly future prospects within Conclusions).

RESPONSE: We thank the reviewer for pointing out this omission. We have added a short conclusion with key research questions that arise from the work.

 -          Consider revising the paper that within the section of Abstract, Introduction and Conclusions should be emphasized practical significance of this paper, all together with providing explanation of the value of the manuscript for similar research in related fields.

RESPONSE: In addition to the research questions in the new conclusion, we have added in some more concrete examples of how the approach could be practically useful in the Discussion, e.g. “The immersive realities approach may enable more studies to explore potential trade-offs at an early stage of design and, in so doing, become an important part of the planning phase of urban green space developments. Such innovations are crucial when addressing issues with the implementation of largescale policy strategies (Hermoso et al. 2022) and can be incorporated in a highly flexible way into exploratory frameworks for citizen involvement with urban landscape management (Maes et al. 2021). Already there have been applications of VR within a co-design context to engage local communities and help to visualize plans for urban design (Leeuwen et al. 2018). As a standard part of pub-lic engagement during the formal consultation around large-scale change in cities, such technologies have the exciting potential to not only visualized proposed futures, but also to explore potential futures in areas that currently lack green spaces. Such an approach could open up opportunities to resolve inequalities (“green gaps”) in urban areas by rais-ing awareness of what is possible (Anguelovski et al. 2018).”

-          Consider avoiding using personal pronouns “we” (line 9, 19,) etc.; please correct throughout whole paper.

RESPONSE: Our understanding is that readers find it easier to understand ideas that are expressed in active voice (the approach taken by Nature, https://www.nature.com/nature-portfolio/for-authors/write) and so we have not changed the text. This is particularly important within the methods to avoid unnecessary passive voice that might complicate the understanding of our approach. If the Editors require us to avoid personal pronouns, then we can convert the manuscript to passive voice prior to publication.

To the authors is suggested to revise the paper carefully as some of the aspects of the manuscript need to be improved in order to support publication. It is recommended English proofreading. Please refer to the Journal guidelines for authors.

RESPONSE: We have revised several elements of the paper in line with the various comments from the different reviewers. We hope that the sense of the paper is now clearer.

Reviewer 3 Report

The study demonstrates an approach to the planning of urban green spaces using virtual reality simulations based on a combination of aerial photographs, digital maps, and site visits. The authors evaluated participants' well-being benefits and safety concerns using virtual reconstructions of 10 urban parks in Bradford, UK, to simulate changes in woodland cover. The selection of parks was based on their use in a study of green space biodiversity and human well-being. The parks varied in their configuration, biodiversity, and tree cover.

The study is very interesting and important for the sustainability.

The manuscript shows as introduction, methodology, presentation of results, discussion, and conclusion.
It is necessary to introduce the characterization of the study area

There is a file attached with corrections/suggestions

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

The study demonstrates an approach to the planning of urban green spaces using virtual reality simulations based on a combination of aerial photographs, digital maps, and site visits. The authors evaluated participants' well-being benefits and safety concerns using virtual reconstructions of 10 urban parks in Bradford, UK, to simulate changes in woodland cover. The selection of parks was based on their use in a study of green space biodiversity and human well-being. The parks varied in their configuration, biodiversity, and tree cover.

The study is very interesting and important for the sustainability.

The manuscript shows as introduction, methodology, presentation of results, discussion, and conclusion.
It is necessary to introduce the characterization of the study area

RESPONSE: We have added a brief summary of the demographics of Bradford as a city and a map that contextualises the locations of the 10 field sites.

There is a file attached with corrections/suggestions

RESPONSE: Below, we list the corrections from the reviewer’s PDF, which are greatly appreciated:

• L14: Delete “of”
  • Done
• L23-34: “I suggest: Natural landscapes and the ecosystems they contain are threatened by a range of human impacts (Tilman et al. 2017)”
  • We have rewritten this sentence in response to reviewer 1’s comments.
• L24: Delete “-“
  • The introduction of hyphenation to break words across lines is a feature of the MDPI template and so we cannot change this.
• L126: “etc,”
  • We have added the comma
• L131: “minimize”
  • We have standardised all spelling to US English.
• L131: “I suggest: Replicating the parks exactly is extremely difficult, especially when we need to minimize the impact of peripheral factors by keeping them the same”
  • Changed
• L178: Change “in” to “by”
  • Changed
• L196: Change “aspect” to “aspects”
  • Changed
• L198: Hyphenate “user-friendly”
  • Changed
• L203: What is the level of significance?
  • We are unsure what the reviewer means. The p-value is 0.156. If they are asking for the alpha-level, then 0.05 would be statistical significant in this model. We have clarified this in the first paragraph of the results: “For the statistical analysis below, we used an alpha-level of 0.05 to determine significance for all tests.”
• L216: Add bold text for the hypotheses
  • Changed
• L232: “benefits”
  • Changed
• L233: “from”
  • We have clarified this sentence as “Secondly, we provide experimental evidence supporting the observations of previous work that highlighted a role for changing tree cover as a potential driver of perceived health benefits (measured as self-reported restorative benefit) in green spaces.” We hope that makes the sense clearer.
• L243: Add comma after “example”
  • Changed.
• L289-291: “I suggest: Further applications have been explored that augment the view of the city to reveal infrastructure and systems concealed below ground but vital to urban functions”
  • Changed.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper The potential health benefits of urban tree planting suggested through immersive environments has been corrected taking into consideration given recommendations.

However, I do have some minor comments/suggestions for authors:

-       Key words: optional / consider merging urban and landscape and to have urban landscape as a key word.

-       Reference: European Union’s Biodiversity Strategy for 2030, (line 119) - please provide refence for the document.

-       The use of personal pronouns: the authors did not replace personal pronouns as it was suggested; they applied “approach taken by Nature, https://www.nature.com/nature-portfolio/for-authors/write”; if this approach is approved by the Journal publishing policy and in accord to the Journal guidelines for authors, I do not have further suggestions considering this issue.

Author Response

However, I do have some minor comments/suggestions for authors:

-       Key words: optional / consider merging urban and landscape and to have urban landscape as a key word.

Response: We have made this change.

-       Reference: European Union’s Biodiversity Strategy for 2030, (line 119) - please provide refence for the document.

Response: We have added the reference – thank you for highlighting this omission.

-       The use of personal pronouns: the authors did not replace personal pronouns as it was suggested; they applied “approach taken by Nature, https://www.nature.com/nature-portfolio/for-authors/write”; if this approach is approved by the Journal publishing policy and in accord to the Journal guidelines for authors, I do not have further suggestions considering this issue.

Response: We did not receive any guidance from the editors on their views on personal pronouns. We had a close look at the instructions for authors, which do not take a clear position: https://www.mdpi.com/authors/layout. Again, if the editors decide that they would like us to change the manuscript then we are happy to do so.