Exploring the Impact of Psychological Accessibility on the Restorative Perception in Urban Forests: A Case Study of Yuelu Mountain, Central China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

An interesting and topical paper. Some interesting findings that offer insight into theory and practice. The quality of the writing requires additional attention as the readability varies in different sections. 

Proof the entire contents well for clarity and increased reader comprehension. For example the first sentence in the abstract "With the improvement of the peoples’ quality of life, the recreational function of urban forests has been becoming popular. " requires grammatical edits for increased clarity. 

Aim to be clear as the first sentence in the introduction - "People's quality of life is rising due to rapid economic development, industrialization, globalization, and social progress in the world." - is then contradicted in the following sentences. 

The paragraph that starts with "A growing body of research suggests that ..." could be improved with additional paragraphing around the sentences that focus on defining restoration. 

The main question addressed by the research: (1) Do people's different attitudes towards the environment influence the level of psychological accessibility and quality of experience? (2) Does the level of psychological accessibility influence the effectiveness of environmental resilience?
This was an interesting and topical study.
This is a broad statement and is positivist. As we know, these factors are also reducing quality of life - "People's quality of life is rising due to rapid economic development, industrialization, globalization, and social progress in the world." Avoid superficial comments and have each statement add value to the argument being developed. 
The paper offers new insights into the psychological accessibility and the influence on environmental resilience. This is important based on the need for improved town planning re: green spaces.  Conclusions was an interesting and well-presented section.
References are appropriate. Tables and figures are easy to read and appropriate for increasing reader comprehension.   Specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the methodology,  further controls should be considered: The scales choices are relevant. Consider justifying these to increase reader knowledge. NEP - explain what this is, why it was used and why only 6 Q's were used when the c]scale has 15 Q's. This may also apply to the other scales used. How? Why? If modified, how was this validated?  "The paper survey was conducted by the author and administered in December 2022." How was this done? Offer specifics so the reader can duplicate the study if desired.

 

 

Author Response

Thanks  for your valuable comments.Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for giving me this opportunity to read the manuscript entitled "Will people come to the forest? Exploring the impact of psychological accessibility on the restorative perception of environment in urban forests: a case study of Yuelu Moutain, Central China". The paper shows significant positive effects between perceived effectiveness environmental restoration (quality experience) & visitor’s psychology accessibility towards their environment attitudes indirectly influencing these factors' effect over time via pathways like "environmental attitude to environmental restorative perceptions."

Here are some issues should be addressed before considering publication.

1.     Please replace the keywords that already appear in the manuscript's title with close synonyms or other keywords, which will also facilitate your paper being searched by potential readers.

2.     Although the researchers used a theoretical model based on cognitive hierarchical theory to guide their empirical research design, there is still room for improvement regarding how well this model fits with visitors' actual experiences at Yuelu Mountain Park.

3.     The method used in this study relies solely on survey responses from visitors to Yuelu Mountain Park. This means that other factors, such as environmental conditions or visitor behavior patterns during different times/days/seasons may not have been fully captured by the data collected through surveys alone.

4.     Line 39 “… improve mood and relieve mental stress [7,8]. …”: a paper titled “Dynamic assessments of population exposure to urban greenspace using multi-source big data” could be cited as a reference here. Besides, Line 80 “…life to truly meet people's demand for green spaces [25,26]. …” a newly published paper titled “Observed inequality in urban greenspace exposure in China” could also be cited.

5.     Since all questions were analyzed using unrotated factor analysis and no single factor explained most of the variance (as per Harman one-way test), there could still be some common method bias present despite researchers' efforts to control for it.

6.     The authors do not provide a detailed explanation or justification for why they chose to use cognitive hierarchical theory as their theoretical model. This may leave readers wondering about other possible models that could have been used instead.

7.     While the results section provides clear and concise information on statistical analyses conducted, there is limited interpretation provided by researchers regarding what these findings mean in terms of practical implications for urban forest park management/planning efforts more broadly speaking.

 

8.     Some grammatical errors exist in the manuscript. Therefore, a critical review of the manuscript's language will improve its readability.

Author Response

Thanks for your valuable comments.Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The revision appears to have been rushed and the spelling, punctuation, grammar and editing will all need considerable attention.  The title probably does not need the "will people visit" as people do visit in large numbers now. The remainder of the title is appropriate.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

 

Thanks for your suggestions. We have made some improvements to the manuscript now. I apologize that the last revision did have a bit of a rush. In terms of grammatical improvements, we have now contacted a friend of us who is a native English speaker from the USA to help us with the manuscript, which will take some time.

The editor asked us to submit a new version within 1 day, however,we couldn't get the results of the manuscript polished that quickly, so it's too soon to upload a fully touched-up version. But we will upload it later as soon as possible. Please forgive us. Thank you again for your advice and help!

 

Kind regards

Ms.Wang