Urban Green–Blue Space Utilization and Public Perceptions Amid the COVID-19 Pandemic: Insights from Northwest China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

A review of this paper shows that its research methodology is relatively plain, mainly using traditional questionnaires and social network analysis (SNA) data, aiming at the survey in the LZC area during the COVID-19 pandemic, trying to find out what kind of interaction and influence there is between UGBS and the public, and exploring the use of UGBS and cognitive changes, in order to find out the functional value of UGBS. The author attempts to point out the exploratory value that this article aims to achieve through literature exploration, and the analysis results also support the similarities of relevant research papers. However, the overall research content lacks highlights and value highlighting. Therefore, the following improvement suggestions and errors are provided as references to enhance the readability of the research value of the article and enhance the description of the highlights of the content.

1.     The content description of the abstract is not strong enough to highlight the value of the paper. The description of the research results is relatively scattered and insufficient, without presenting special significance and value, as well as proposing the contribution that the study should have, or specific strategic suggestions.

2.     It is recommended that the survey questionnaire should indicate the start and end periods of collection. In addition, the data provided in the article is incorrect, please check and correct it. For example, females (n=882) and males (n=824) have a total of 1706, but the total number of data listed in “Education Level” in Table 1 is 1690, “Residency length” is 1704, and “Annual income” is 1708. All of the above data do not match the total sample size. Please double-check and correct.

3.     There are multiple inconsistencies in the writing of COVID-19 in the article, and two different expressions are used, namely "Covid-19" and "COVID-19". Which one is correct? Please use consistent writing.

4.     Most of the images in the article have poor resolution and are too blurry, and although the presented effects are dazzling, they are not easy to recognize and cannot support the strength of the research results, reducing readability. It is recommended to make corrections, improve resolution, and consider ways to present them in a way that makes it easy for readers to understand, such as in Figures 2, 4, and 6.

5.     The research analysis tool employed in this study, Social Network Analysis (SNA) with Gephi 0.10.1, suggests providing a detailed description of the software's functions and principles to highlight the methodological value of this paper. Meanwhile, it is necessary to describe the content of the data collection and the amount of information obtained. And the data analysis details such as processing methods and types.

6. In the conclusion section, corresponding and more specific recommendations and strategies should be proposed based on the discovered features and problems; otherwise, the value and practicality of the study cannot be highlighted.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Strengths:

1. Your paper contributes to the relevance that urban policy science addressing green spaces is gaining worldwide, particularly to serve in critical times (pandemic, disasters), but also on a daily-life basis.

2. The selected reviewed literature is rich and appropriately selected. The introduction is quick, but enough to depart towards the sections that elucidate interest the most: methods and results.

3. The combination of methods provides different perspectives and covers different characterizations of the services provided by urban green spaces.

4. The conclusions are relevant in terms of urban policy and provide specificities. Further research could also be based on this research and opens new perspectives to be explored and in other contexts.

Suggestions for reinforcement:

1. Given the large amount of data and information produced, I suggest a systematization/integration/summarization scheme that allows the reader to comprehend all results and relate them to each other and to practical urban policy.

2. It would be helpful to simplify the explanation on the mobility preferences section. It is not quite clear how this part of the work was done, either. The methods section could also clarify this.

3. Moreover, the social media results section is quite interesting. However, it could also be reinforced with more details provided in the methodology.

4. There is an invocation to a methodological sheet in the appendix that was not provided. 

5. Finally, I suggest to include a few pictures and aerial photographs of the study areas to better illustrate them.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx