Dynamic and Heterogeneous Demand for Urban Green Space by Urban Residents: Evidence from the Cities in China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

Please find attached a summary of my suggestion/revisions of the present manuscript.

I really appreciated this work and, in my opinion, only minor revisions are needed. Especially, I would suggest to reduce some paragraphs, avoid redundancy, check typos and move some sentences from a paragraph to another. I think this manuscript needs to be improved as it can reach the readers' attention more efficiently and directly because it worth it.

Title and abstract give an overall view of the paper features, well-identifying the objectives of the present work. I would suggest to slightly modify the abstract providing numerical data (quantitative data) and not only generic sentences as you have done in the results and discussion sections.

The introduction section is clear and fairly describes the background and the rationale of this research. Be careful to strictly introduce the topic only. The materials and methods sections need to be improved. It is too detailed and sometimes makes it difficult to follow the flow. Similar issues in the results and discussion.

Consider cutting many parts of the manuscript trying to achieve a better synthesis that condensates the meaning and the most important aspects of your findings. Try to be less wordy and more effective in catching the readers’ attention.

Here attached the track changes file highlighting some example redundancy, long and wordy sentences etc.

 

Best regards

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to reviewer

Dear reviewer,

 

Thanks very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. We really appreciate all your valuable comments and suggestions. Therefore, we strictly implement all modifications following your advice. The following is a detailed revision and explanation of your comments.

 

Comment 1: Especially, I would suggest to reduce some paragraphs, avoid redundancy, check typos and move some sentences from a paragraph to another. I think this manuscript needs to be improved as it can reach the readers' attention more efficiently and directly because it worth it.

Response:

Thank you very much for your attention and encouragement, we totally agree with your suggestion. We have removed the redundant sentences at Line 48, 53, 83, 86, 94, 157, 166, 168, 223, 265, 269, 281, 288, etc. We have checked the full text for typos and moved sentences that you remarked to the proper section at Line 241-242, etc.

 

Comment 2: I would suggest to slightly modify the abstract providing numerical data (quantitative data) and not only generic sentences as you have done in the results and discussion sections.

Response:

Thank you for pointing this out, we are sorry that we do not provide enough information in abstract. We have added a sentence at Line 20-21.

“The results confirmed our hypothesis that when UGS increases by 1%, local house prices will increase by about 3% and house rents will increase by about 7%.”

Since the abstract has a 200-word limit, we cannot provide more detailed information. If you still think it is necessary to provide more numerical data in the abstract, we can accept your suggestion and modify it.

 

Comment 3: The introduction section is clear and fairly describes the background and the rationale of this research. Be careful to strictly introduce the topic only.

Response:

Thank you for your comments, we are sorry for some inappropriate or misunderstanding content in introduction. We have removed the sentence you remarked at Line 48 and 84, and added the reference at Line 81.

 

Comment 4: The materials and methods sections need to be improved. It is too detailed and sometimes makes it difficult to follow the flow. Similar issues in the results and discussion. Consider cutting many parts of the manuscript trying to achieve a better synthesis that condensates the meaning and the most important aspects of your findings. Try to be less wordy and more effective in catching the readers’ attention.

Response:

Thank you for your careful review, we are sorry for the redundant or misunderstanding expression. We have revised the materials and methods section strictly follow your suggestions and marks. First, we have removed the redundant sentence at Line 94-95, 167, 169. Then, we have revised the section 2.2 at Line 224-245. Finally, we have moved the appropriate sentence to this section at Line 241-242.

 

Moreover, we have rephrased the limitation of this paper at Line 389-404:

“Several limitations of our research need to be addressed. First, this paper addresses the dynamic and heterogeneous demands of urban residents for UGS through empirical analysis while cannot fully explain the underlying driving mechanism behind it. Second, UGS is calculated on the basis of the total area of parks, and the UGS quality is evaluated by the per capita park area. Thus, dimensions of measurement are relatively simple and may not fully reflect the conditions of UGS. Third, this study only focuses on the market demand for UGS and ignores social issues such as unbalanced green space among cities. We aim to tackle these challenges in future studies.”

 

To further improve the language, we have sent this paper to MDPI's language editor for polishing (as shown in Figure 1).

Figure 1 MDPI’s language editing certificate

In conclusion, following your valuable suggestions and comments, we have tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. In order to facilitate your further review and confirmation, we have marked by "Track Changes" in the revised manuscript.

Overall, we appreciate for your enthusiastic, patient and meticulous review, and hope that our modification work can meet your requirements. Once again, thank you very much for each of your comments and suggestions.

 

Best wishes.

Respectfully yours,

List of authors: Zhang Tianzheng, Zeng Yingxiang, Zhang Yingjie, Song Yan, Li Hongxun

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript tried to analyze the dynamic and heterogeneous demand of residents for UGS, and that also stated that the manuscript provided a path for the planning and management of UGS in different types of cities to adapt to global climate changes. First of all, this study is not so correlated to global climate change, so you do not need to highlight this. Second, the manuscript spends a lot of time to collect, progress, and analysis of the data, also find some results, which is good. But this study still not clearly show us the novelty of the research. Also, the whole manuscript needs to have a significant improvement. For some detailed comments see below.

1. "To quantify urban residents’ demands for UGS, we use the Rosen-Roback model to estimate the residents’ willingness to pay (WTP) through the capitalization effect of UGS in the housing market of different cities [12-14]." who is we? is it you?
2. The introduction needs to rewrite. in this version, the introduction is confusing and not focus on the research progress of the research question try to answer. We hardly understand the research progress in this field. Besides, what is the novelty of the research? And why you think your research questions are novelty?

3. "after adding the control variables, when the park areas increase by 1%, local house prices increase by 3.3%, and house rents increase by 7%. When the per capita park areas increase by 1%, local house prices increase by 3.0%, and house rents increase by 7.2%." how can you avoid the other influencing factors to keep the result reliable?

4. "The results show that the price elasticity of demand for UGS by house renters is higher than that of house buyers, suggesting that house renters may be more sensitive to changes in UGS. Buyers and renters have different housing demands [39, 40]." I am doubtful about this argument. From my understanding, first you need to show us the reliability of the results then you can state this argument. 

5. Separate the discussion and conclusion part. in the discussion part, you need to add a section to discuss the limitation of your research, it is clear, the study still has limitations and uncertainly.  
6. in addition, in discussion 1, you need to focus on one or two topics to do the discussion. then discussion 2 is policy implication. Overall, you need to rethink and carefully organize the structure of the manuscript.
7. A new related paper is recommended to read: Evaluating the disparities in urban greenspace provision in communities with diverse built environments: The case of a rapidly urbanizing Chinese city  
8. The language is needed to make a significant improvement.  

Author Response

Response to reviewer

 

Dear reviewer,

 

Thank you very much for your valuable comments and encouragement. We fully understand and agree with your judgments and suggestions. Therefore, we strictly implement all modifications following your advice and instructions. The following content is the detailed modification and explanation of your comments.

 

Comment 1: this study is not so correlated to global climate change, so you do not need to highlight this.

Response:

Thank you very much for your attention and suggestion, we are sorry for the misunderstanding. Let us briefly explain first, the topic of this special issue is about the challenge of climate change to cities. Since urban green space (UGS) can adjust the microclimate to deal with the adverse effects of climate change, we hope to have a deeper understanding of UGS by studying residents' demands for UGS, so as to make suggestions for the planning and management of UGS. Finally, properly planned and managed UGS can be used to meet the challenges of climate change.

At the same time, your reminders and suggestions are very valuable, we have removed some redundant sentences at Line 30 and added some conclusions at Line 379-381, 413-416. While if you still think this part of the content is inappropriate, we can remove all the content related to the challenge of climate change to cities.

 

Comment 2: "To quantify urban residents’ demands for UGS, we use the Rosen-Roback model to estimate the residents’ willingness to pay (WTP) through the capitalization effect of UGS in the housing market of different cities [12-14]." who is we? is it you?

Response:

Thank you for pointing this out, we apologize for the misunderstanding. We have replaced “we” with “previous studies”. To avoid misunderstanding, we have revised this sentence at Line 50.

 

“Using the Rosen–Roback Model, previous studies have shown that the amenities in cities have a positive impact on the local house prices, confirming that urban residents demand amenities such as UGS [12-15].”

 

Comment 3: The introduction needs to rewrite. in this version, the introduction is confusing and not focus on the research progress of the research question try to answer. We hardly understand the research progress in this field. Besides, what is the novelty of the research? And why you think your research questions are novelty?

Response:

Thank you for pointing this out. We have revised the introduction to emphasize the research progress in this field at Line 50-54 and 70-72, and added novelty information to this research at Line 55-69 and 75-84.

The research progress in this field are as follows:

“Using the Rosen–Roback Model, previous studies have shown that the amenities in cities have a positive impact on the local house prices, confirming that urban residents demand amenities such as UGS [12-15].While many of the previous empirical findings and conclusions have focused on the impact on house prices, few have analyzed the impact on rent, which is also an important component of housing market.”

 

“Home buyers and renters have different requirements for public goods in their neighborhoods [18]. Previous studies have shown that the housing price includes home buyers’ willingness to pay (WTP) for public goods other than the housing itself [19]. As housing prices involve expectation of future asset return, including investments in the community’s public transport facilities and environmental improvements, using house price data for estimation may overestimate the premium yielded by the public goods in the community. On the other hand, rent indicates the WTP of renters for the public goods that are currently in the community [20]. The different preferences for housing lead renters and buyers to pay different degrees of attention to various factors when leasing or purchasing housing [21]. In short, rent reflects the current demands of the renters, while the housing price reflects residents’ various requirements for the houses that they buy and their expectations of future asset return. As an important part of the urban resident population, renters have requirements for houses and the surrounding amenities that differ from those of home buyers [9].”

 

“Since previous studies have covered relatively few cities with relatively short study periods, the dynamic and the heterogeneous preferences of urban residents have not been given sufficient attention [22-25].”

 

There are two novelties of the current research. On one hand, this paper not only considers the demand for UGS by house buyers, but also considers the demand for UGS by house renters. we have added the content of the difference in demand between house buyers and renters at Line 55-60.

 

“As an important part of the urban resident population, renters have requirements for houses and the surrounding amenities that differ from those of home buyers [9]. If only the requirements of home buyers for UGS are analyzed, then the results cannot fully reflect the preferences of the majority of residents in the housing market. Therefore, accurately identifying and understanding the differences between home buyers and renters in their demands for UGS is important for UGS sustainable development.”

 

On the other hand, taking advantage of diversity of Chinese cities, we study the heterogeneity and dynamic changes of demand for UGS by urban residents in cities with different characteristics.

 

“To this end, it is of particular importance that this study focuses more on urban diversity and has a relatively long research period. Prefecture-level cities in China are an ideal object of study for this purpose, as they represent a wide range of city characteristics, which is a result of the development of China’s real estate market.”

 

Comment 4: "after adding the control variables, when the park areas increase by 1%, local house prices increase by 3.3%, and house rents increase by 7%. When the per capita park areas increase by 1%, local house prices increase by 3.0%, and house rents increase by 7.2%." how can you avoid the other influencing factors to keep the result reliable?

 

"The results show that the price elasticity of demand for UGS by house renters is higher than that of house buyers, suggesting that house renters may be more sensitive to changes in UGS. Buyers and renters have different housing demands [39, 40]." I am doubtful about this argument. From my understanding, first you need to show us the reliability of the results then you can state this argument.

Response:

Thank you for your comments, we apologize that we do not provide enough information on the reliability of empirical results.

 

We have controlled for several variables to make the results reliable. The control variables mainly refer to two aspects, namely, economic level, and population size of urban characteristics. The variables of urban economic characteristics are per capita GDP, per capita disposable income and real estate investment. The variable of urban population size is permanent resident population.

 

In order to avoid the other influencing factors, all results in this paper use city fixed effects. Meanwhile, we have added the Hausman test results in the appendix 1-2 to prove that the fixed effects model is reasonable.

 

Table 2 shows that the coefficient of LnTPA is 0.033 at 5% significant level, and the coefficient of LnPPA is 0.030 at 5% significant level. Table 3 shows that the coefficient of LnTPA is 0.070 at 1% significant level, and the coefficient of LnPPA is 0.072 at 1% significant level. Through the comparison of coefficient, the result shows that the price elasticity of demand for UGS by house renters is higher than that of house buyers, suggesting that house renters may be more sensitive to changes in UGS.

 

If you still think that our research lacks reliability, we can make further changes based on your suggestions.

 

Comment 5: Separate the discussion and conclusion part. in the discussion part, you need to add a section to discuss the limitation of your research, it is clear, the study still has limitations and uncertainly. In addition, in discussion 1, you need to focus on one or two topics to do the discussion. then discussion 2 is policy implication. Overall, you need to rethink and carefully organize the structure of the manuscript.

Response:

Thank you for your attention and suggestion, we totally agree with your comments. We have divided the discussion and conclusion part. Section 4 is the discussion, which contains a discussion on the heterogeneity of demand (4.1. Residents’ demand for UGS: buyers vs. renters), policy implications (4.2) and research limitations (4.3). Section 5 presents the main conclusion. Meanwhile, we have merged the original section 3 and 4 into the current section 3 which is the results part.

 

We have rephrased the limitation of this paper in section 4.3 at Line 398-404.

 

“4.3 Limitations

Several limitations of our research need to be addressed. First, this paper addresses the dynamic and heterogeneous demands of urban residents for UGS through empirical analysis while cannot fully explain the underlying driving mechanism behind it. Second, UGS is calculated on the basis of the total area of parks, and the UGS quality is evaluated by the per capita park area. Thus, dimensions of measurement are relatively simple and may not fully reflect the conditions of UGS. Third, this study only focuses on the market demand for UGS and ignores social issues such as unbalanced green space among cities. We aim to tackle these challenges in future studies.”

 

Comment 6: A new related paper is recommended to read: Evaluating the disparities in urban greenspace provision in communities with diverse built environments: The case of a rapidly urbanizing Chinese city.

Response:

Thank you for your attention and suggestion, we have carefully studied this article and have adjusted the structure. What’s more, we have revised the discussion at Line 371-404 according to this article. Moreover, we have added this article to the reference 25 at Line 63.

 

Comment 7: The language is needed to make a significant improvement.

Response:

Thank you for your attention and suggestion, we are sorry that the language did not meet your expectations.

Firstly, we have checked the full text for typos at Line 73, 82, 85, etc.

Secondly, the results and discussion sections have been readjusted at Line 188, 240, and 333.

Thirdly, we have removed the redundant and inappropriate expressions at Line 48, 53, 83, 86, 94, 157, 166, 168, 223, 265, 269, 281, 288, etc.

Finally, we have sent this paper to MDPI's language editor for polishing (as shown in Figure 1). The revision has marked in the revised manuscript.

 

Figure 1 MDPI’s language editing certificate

In conclusion, following your valuable suggestions and comments, we have tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. In order to facilitate your further review and confirmation, we have marked by "Track Changes" in the revised manuscript.

 

Overall, we appreciate for your enthusiastic, patient and meticulous review, and hope that our modification work can meet your requirements. Once again, thank you very much for each of your comments and suggestions.

 

Best wishes.

Respectfully yours,

List of authors: Zhang Tianzheng, Zeng Yingxiang, Zhang Yingjie, Song Yan, Li Hongxun

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The author has answered my comments. I just suggest the author improve the introduction and discussion to make it more perfect. in the current version, it still a bit wordy and need to polish. 

Author Response

Response to reviewer

Dear reviewer,

 

Thanks very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. We really appreciate all your valuable comments and suggestions. Therefore, we strictly implement all modifications following your advice. The following is a detailed revision and explanation of your comments.

 

Comment 1: I just suggest the author improve the introduction and discussion to make it more perfect.

Response:

Thank you very much for your attention and encouragement, we totally agree with your suggestion. In the introduction, we have rephrased several sentences to illustrate our research progress and novelty at Line 28-34, 40-45, 57-61and 62-63.

 

“The urban green spaces (UGS) are the foundation of the urban ecosystem, which provide opportunities for a wide range of leisure, sports, and recreational activities [1-3]. Properly planned and managed UGS can improve the urban environment, as well as contribute to urban residents by providing physical and psychological benefits [4-9]. UGS located in or near urban residential areas have received widespread attention due to its relevance to the living environment and health of residents. [10, 11]. Therefore, estimating the demand for UGS by urban residents is essential for better identifying and understanding its benefits, which can facilitate demand-oriented planning of UGS.”

 

“Nevertheless, the previous studies have focused primarily on the impact on house prices in a few cities and/or over a short period of time [16-18]. Moreover, little attention has been devoted to the impact on rent, or the dynamic and heterogenous demand by residents across different cities [19, 20]. Renters have demands for houses and the surrounding UGS that differ from those of home buyers [21-23]. If only considering the demand for UGS by house buyers, the results cannot fully reflect the preferences of most residents in the housing market [24, 25]. So, it is essential to assess the demand for UGS by home buyers and renters more appropriately using data with improved spatial and/or temporal coverage, and attacking the dynamic changes and heterogeneity issues.”

 

In the discussion, we have revised the structure of this section, and rephrased several sentences to make it clear at Line 309-315, 316-325, 327-334, etc.

 

 

“Our findings have also provided policymakers with important information regarding how to formulate and implement sound policies in planning UGS. Overall, the results provide an evidence of the demand for UGS by urban residents. Meanwhile, improvement in UGS can not only help promote the quality of living but it can also contribute to attracting talents and businesses [36-40]. This is critical to maintaining a city’s vitality [41, 42], and achieving sustainability [43]. Therefore, Chinese government should coordinate the relationship between economic and ecological and environmental protection. In the process of urbanization, they should take a new path of high-quality development guided by ecological priority and green development.”

 

“The planning of UGS by governments should maximize social benefits in accordance with the interests and preferences of residents [9]. Considering the heterogeneous demand for UGS, the Chinese government should supply UGS based on different biophysical and socioeconomic conditions of particular cities [27, 44]. Meanwhile, to ensure the economic feasibility of implementation, the government can also subsidize high urban greening financing costs through a series of suitable value capture strategies [45]. Not only can the management cost be cut down by public municipalities but the features of the park may also be renovated or improved to better match the demands of residents”

 

In the conclusion part, we have rephrased this section at Line 325-358.

 

“These empirical results have broad academic and policy implications. First, we have advanced understanding of the estimation of residents’ demand for UGS by addressing some of the underlying technical issues with more adequate data and models. In light of our research, it is no longer appropriate to ignore the heterogeneous demand for UGS by residents when anyone attempts to evaluate the demand for UGS. Considering the benefits of UGS, it is crucial to provide a path for the planning and management of UGS in cities with different characteristics to advance the sustainable development of UGS through a market-oriented approach and more efficient supply.”

 

Finally, the detailed revision results can be viewed in the attachment.

 

Comment 2: In the current version, it still a bit wordy and need to polish.

Response:

Thank you for pointing this out, we have polished based on the current version. To make the expression clear, we have rephrased some redundant sentences.

In the introduction part, we have rephrased several redundant sentences at Line 30, 32, 38, 46, 57, 62, etc.

In the materials and methods, and results parts, we have reduced some unnecessary expressions at Line 79, 98, 114, 134, 194, 209, 236, 264, etc.

In the discussion and conclusion, we have readjusted these parts and rephrased some sentences at Line 310-315, 318-320, 327-334, etc.

 

To avoid wordy, we have removed some redundant sentences. This current version has reduced about 1,000 words compared to the previous version.

 

In conclusion, following your valuable suggestions and comments, we have tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. In order to facilitate your further review and confirmation, we have marked by "Track Changes" in the revised manuscript.

Overall, we appreciate for your enthusiastic, patient and meticulous review, and hope that our modification work can meet your requirements. Once again, thank you very much for each of your comments and suggestions.

 

Best wishes.

Respectfully yours,

List of authors: Zhang Tianzheng, Zeng Yingxiang, Zhang Yingjie, Song Yan, Li Hongxun

Author Response File: Author Response.docx