Effect of Landscape Elements on Public Psychology in Urban Park Waterfront Green Space: A Quantitative Study by Semantic Segmentation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The statement "... (line 52) - well-being (line 56)" is very important and should be explained in more detail.

Can something be written about the (in)representativeness of the sample (line 176)?

Why is research not conducted on four- or seven-point scales in both cases (line 184, line 200)

In Discussion (line 396) a comparison with classical methods from fieldwork is expected, not just from the laboratory (VR).

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The presented manuscript is interesting. It uses new technologies to explore the correlation between urban waterfront green spaces and public psychology (neural networks for image analysis, VR for simulation of the perceived spatial environment). The methodology and purpose of the conducted research were clearly formulated. The results are clearly described and the discussion is extensive. A minor point concerns section 4.1. Semantic segmentation model and dataset for urban waterfront green space (lines 418-428), which duplicates the content found in the Introduction.

It would be very interesting to see results from studies conducted on more variability of social groups. Anyway, the authors themselves indicate this as a limitation of research. The average age of the respondents was 24 years - young people perceive the environment in a different way and their reactions are often different than those of older people. It would also be interesting to distinguish between the responses in the study group depending on gender (whether the psychological reaction of women and men is different).

In the Introduction, lines 39-40, the authors state that urbanized life actually affects the health of residents on a physical and psychological. In the next few lines, the authors focus on the negative effects in the mental sphere - specifically, mental illness. This is too much of a limitation. A number of other negative psychological aspects of city life are discussed in the literature. This should be extended. The impact of the urban environment on the mental health of residents should be discussed in more detail. Further in lines 57-58 the authors write that "it is essential to focus on the psychological healing benefits that this environment provides". Urban waterfront green spaces also have an impact on physical fitness, which should not be overlooked. The assumptions of the study were constructed in such a way that they refer only to the psychological aspect.

Technical Notes:

The abstract presents the subject of the research as "36 typical waterfront green areas in Fuzhou Xihu Park and Zuohai Park", but information should appear where these parks are located. The same applies to line 111. It is only in section 2.1 Study Sites that the location of these parks is discussed in detail.

Line 17 - is psycho-logical should be psychological

Line 119 - there is a semicolon at the end of the sentence, when there should be a dot.

Figure 4 - the word grass should start with a capital letter.

The bibliography was badly formatted, contrary to the guidelines for authors.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript deals with relevant and important topic which corresponds to the journal topics. However, the paper requires some major and minor revisions in order to capitalize on its potential.

- I kindly ask the authors to consider using the term urban park waterfront green space instead of urban waterfront green space, both in the title and the text, i.e. to be more precise in order to avoid further misunderstanding. In addition to the limitations of the research, which were stated by the authors themselves, the question is whether the research findings can be applied to the waterfront in general, since they are characterized by many different and complex determinants.

- Lines 112-119. It is not entirely clear whether these are research questions or research phases.  I kindly ask the authors  to rewrite this part and clearly and precisely define research questions. This will give them later opportunity to make conclusion more precise. It is also necessary to explain the logical links between research questions more directly.

- Lines 120 - 123. The goal is very poorly structured. Please, define the goal(s) in accordance with research focus and  later elaboration.

- Lines 135 and 136. In what sense are chosen parks typical and representative? The authors state that one is example of classic park, while the other is newly built. Are they typical representatives of these two types? Do their similarities and differences affect various research findings? Please, be more specific in terms of methodological point of view.

- The section Conclusion is very poor structured and insufficiently precise. It is necessary to give clearly answers to the research goals and questions.

- Line 23 (Abstract) - the authors mention 36 scenes. They are also shown in Figure , but I do not find explanation in the text. Are they landscape nodes (line 148)? I apologize if there is an explanation and I did not notice it.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Thanks for considering suggestions.