Application of the Sustainable Sites Initiative Rating System in Urban Green Space Construction in China—The Case of Xuhui Runway Park

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research outlined in the article "Research on the Application of SITES Rating System in Urban Green Space Construction in China—A Case Study of Xuhui Runway Park" seems scientifically robust and relevant for advancing knowledge in sustainable landscape construction, particularly in the context of China. The abstract, introduction, and methodology provide a comprehensive overview of the research objectives, theoretical foundations, and the approach taken.

The abstract succinctly outlines the research's focus on investigating the applicability of the Sustainable Sites Initiative (SITES) in Chinese urban green space construction, using the case study of Xuhui Runway Park. It highlights the systematic description and analysis of the park's adherence to SITES criteria, along with suggestions for optimization and promotion of SITES in Chinese projects.

The introduction contextualizes the study within the global paradigm of sustainable development, highlighting the significance of sustainable evaluation systems and their evolution, particularly in the construction industry. It effectively positions SITES among other sustainability assessment systems and underscores its relevance in evaluating landscape sustainability. Moreover, the introduction underscores the gap in standardized systems for sustainable landscape construction in China, emphasizing the need to explore SITES' application in this context. It mentions the limited discourse on the applicability of SITES in Chinese landscape projects, indicating the opportunity for further research in this area.

The methodology section is thorough, detailing the research purpose, design, and methodology adopted. The use of the case study method focusing on Xuhui Runway Park, an officially certified SITES project in China, is a robust approach. The comprehensive use of multiple data sources—documents, direct observations, and interviews—strengthens the credibility of the research.

The utilization of SITES' framework elements for non-participatory and structured observations, along with drone photography and interviews with key stakeholders, demonstrates a well-rounded approach to evaluating the park's compliance and understanding its impact.

The research demonstrates a rigorous approach to exploring the application of SITES in Chinese urban green space construction. It fills a crucial gap in the literature by not only assessing a certified project but also providing recommendations for system optimization and promotion in the Chinese context.

The "Conclusion and Discussion" segment adeptly summarises the study's essence, primarily focusing on the applicability of the Sustainable Sites Initiative (SITES) in Chinese urban green space projects. It recognises SITES as a mature and influential system with a holistic influence on these projects' life cycles: from planning and design to construction and ongoing maintenance.

One of the main findings is the detailed elucidation of how SITES requirements synchronise with the various stages of landscape projects in China. It outlines key steps, emphasizing the importance of meticulous planning, feasible design strategies, integrated construction processes, and sustainable maintenance plans. These insights provide a comprehensive roadmap for aligning projects with SITES criteria.

However, the study also conscientiously highlights limitations and areas for improvement. It acknowledges data accessibility issues due to intellectual property protection, which restricts a thorough understanding of the project's design intentions. Additionally, it admits the challenge of fully analysing each of SITES' evaluation criteria within the article's confines, signalling the complexity and breadth of the evaluation system.

In terms of enhancing the scientific rigour of the paper, it could benefit from expanding upon certain aspects. For instance, while it thoroughly describes the practical implications of SITES in China, a deeper analysis of specific case studies or comparative analyses might enrich its scientific depth. Moreover, providing clearer justifications or references for certain claims, especially regarding the need for improvements in SITES indicators and promotional efforts in China, would bolster the paper's credibility.

Looking forward, the paper aptly outlines areas for future research, suggesting a focus on user experiences within SITES-certified projects and a deeper exploration of how sustainable landscapes contribute to social benefits. Additionally, proposing multi-case studies based on the increasing trend of SITES-certified projects in China presents a promising avenue for strengthening the research conclusions.

In short, I have appreciate the depth of your study and the insights it provides into the applicability of the Sustainable Sites Initiative (SITES) in Chinese urban green space projects. Your findings regarding the alignment of SITES requirements with various stages of landscape projects in China are particularly noteworthy and offer a comprehensive roadmap for practitioners and stakeholders.

 

While acknowledging the robustness of your work, I believe that further enhancements could strengthen the paper's scientific depth:

1.     Expanding on specific case studies or including comparative analyses would enrich the paper's scientific depth. This could provide more detailed insights into the practical implications of SITES in urban green space projects in China.

2.     Strengthening claims and suggestions by providing clearer justifications or references, especially concerning the identified need for improvements in SITES indicators and promotional efforts in China, would bolster the paper's credibility and scientific rigour.

3.     Elaborating on the methodological approach, including insights into how certain conclusions were drawn or decisions were made during the study, could offer readers a clearer understanding of the research process and enhance the study's scientific validity.

 

Your paper has great potential, and these suggested enhancements could further solidify its scholarly contribution.

Author Response

Response to reviewer

Research on the Application of SITES Rating System in Urban Green Space Construction in China—A Case Study of Xuhui Runway Park

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your thoughtful comments on our manuscript. Under your guidance, I have had the opportunity to refine my research and have gained considerable benefits from your feedback. The following responses provide detailed explanations and modifications in addressing the main issues you raised:

1.Regarding the expansion or comparative analysis of specific case studies:

Our study is designed as a single-case study for in-depth field research and design study. We supplement the three criteria for case selection in "2.2. Case Selection" (lines 149-179). These criteria emphasize the importance of choosing a representative Chinese SITES certified project, opting for certified projects over pre-certified ones, and selecting projects that are feasible for on-site research and publicly accessible. Given the early stage of SITES certification in China, where only three projects have been certified, and considering factors such as data collection, project openness, and permission for public disclosure, we have chosen the Xuhui Runway Park in Shanghai as the sole eligible project for on-site research.

We reference Yin (2013) on the appropriateness of single-case study design, noting its suitability in certain situations. As the first certified Chinese project, the Xuhui Runway Park is sufficiently typical, and through in-depth research and cross-analysis of data, it effectively reflects SITES's actual impact on Chinese urban green space projects.

As the promotion of SITES in China progresses, it is expected to unveil additional cases that offer valuable insights for future research endeavors. We recognize the promising avenue of multi-case cross-studies as SITES gains momentum in China, offering an expanding pool of cases for research. These points are further supplemented in "5.2. Research Limitations" (lines 600-620) and "5.3. Research Outlook" (lines 621-636).

2. Enhancing Clarity and Justification in Addressing SITES Improvements and Promotion in China

In order to enhancing clarity and justification in addressing SITES improvements and promotion in China, and considering both the Chinese and international contexts. We have introduced a section titled "4. Applicability and Limitations of the SITES in China." (lines 482-554) This section provides a comprehensive exploration of urban green space construction in China and thoroughly examines the applicability and limitations of the SITES framework within this context. To address the identified need for improvements in SITES indicators and promotion in China, we have highlighted four key aspects: (1) Incomplete alignment with Chinese standards and specifications. (2) Imbalanced scoring weightings. (3) Insufficient policy support. (4) Limited Promotion (lines 514-554). These refinements aim to enhance the clarity and justification of our claims and suggestions, bolstering the paper's credibility and scientific rigor.

.

3. Enhancing Methodological Clarity and Framework

To address your suggestion, we have introduced a new section titled "2.4. Research Framework," (lines 205-232) providing a detailed exposition on the Unit of Analysis and Embedded Unit of Analysis. Specifically, four stages of the landscape architecture project's lifecycle are considered as embedded units of analysis. Each of these four embedded units of analysis is thoroughly described, followed by cross-analysis for validation. Ultimately, the study aims to analyze and summarize the findings to draw research conclusions. The inclusion of Figure 1, a Landscape Architecture Project Process Diagram, further enhances the visual clarity of the methodological approach, making the article more lucid at the methodological and framework levels.

In addition, we have made further adjustments and optimizations to the structure and content of the paper, including but not limited to expanding the review section, modifying the abstract, introduction, and conclusion. We have added an analysis of the scoring situation for Xuhui Park, increased the number of references, and removed some inappropriate content, among other changes.

Thank you for your valuable feedback and thoughtful suggestions again. Your insights have been instrumental in enhancing the quality of our manuscript. We appreciate your time and effort in reviewing our work.

Best regards,

Authors.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript uses the Sustainable Sites Initiative (SITES) to analyze the urban intervention done in the Xuhui Runway Park in Shanghai, which was a public project officially certified by SITES. The approach is focused in four main stages: project planning and programming, schematic design, construction and operations and use. The case study is interesting as it demonstrates how a previous airport runway was converted into an urban green space and the topic is within the scope of the journal. However, the manuscript presents too many problems related with the organization, structure and content:

i) The manuscript appears to lack careful review by the authors prior to submission. Several issues include grammar and punctuation errors, references not following the prescribed journal format (numeric), missing sections (particularly the first one), an abrupt jump from section 3 to 5, figures not being cited in the text (e.g., Figure 1, 2), and various punctuation problems (lines 92, 100, 120, 367, etc.). The Abstract, in lines 21-29, needs to be revised due to grammar problems. These observations suggest a lack of consistent verification by the authors before submitting their manuscript.

ii) In my assessment, the primary concern lies in the content. The manuscript is overly theoretical and descriptive, a point that the authors themselves acknowledge in line 485 (“It is more of a description of the actual landscape effect after the project is completed.”). The claim that the manuscript "systematically discussed the application of SITES in China" (line 460) and "summarized the sustainable design strategies applicable to urban green space construction in China" (line 469) seems overstated. The manuscript primarily relies on uncertain sources to describe the main operations in Xuhui Runway Park. The question arises: can this singular operation truly be representative of all interventions carried out in China?

The paper has a chaotic structure. It is recommended that the authors reorganize it following the conventional format: Introduction, Literature Review, Methods and Data, Results, Discussion, and Conclusions. Of particular concern is the Methodology (“Research design”), which is inadequately addressed with only a couple of lines. Furthermore, the data sources raise questions about the scientific rigor of the paper, as they are vaguely identified as various undocumented documents, direct observations on-site, and interviews with some people involved in the project. The lack of details regarding interview methodology leaves readers uncertain about the basis for the narrative in section 3—whether it relies solely on the author's opinion or is rooted in specific sources or interviews.

Contrary to the expectations set by the title (SITES Rating System), there is a notable absence of details about the scoring and rating system used in this project. This omission is a major drawback. As indicated in line 146, SITES incorporates 18 prerequisites and 48 scoring criteria. Including such information in the manuscript is crucial for enhancing objectivity in the analysis and aiding readers in comprehending the performance assigned to various stages, thereby facilitating a critical discussion around this evaluation. Conducting more comprehensive interviews with a larger number of people, and presenting their content systematically could serve as an alternative approach to enhance the overall quality of this paper, albeit requiring a refocus of the paper.

 The discussion in the manuscript is poor. The findings are not adequately contextualized within the existing literature, considering both the Chinese and international contexts. Furthermore, the practical planning and design implications of the study are insufficiently explored. While it's noted that the intervention in Xuhui Runway Park was certified by SITES, the paper falls short in explaining how this rating evaluation system could contribute to the creation of more sustainable projects and facilitate replication in other case studies. This crucial question remains unanswered.

Additionally, the study's use of references is limited, with only 31 cited. The theoretical background provided at the beginning lacks a comprehensive overview of the use of the evaluation system, and the discussion would benefit from greater support through additional references.

 iii) In light of these observations, I strongly encourage the authors to thoroughly revise the manuscript, focusing on improving its organization, coherence, and the objectivity of the analysis. After addressing these concerns, the manuscript could be resubmitted for further consideration.

Thank you.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 Moderate editing of English language required.

Author Response

Response to reviewer

Research on the Application of SITES Rating System in Urban Green Space Construction in China—A Case Study of Xuhui Runway Park

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your thoughtful comments on our manuscript. Under your guidance, I have had the opportunity to refine my research and have gained considerable benefits from your feedback. The following responses provide detailed explanations and modifications in addressing the main issues you raised:

1. Correction of grammar, punctuation, and formatting

We appreciate your diligent assessment, and we acknowledge the identified issues. We have conducted a comprehensive review and made the necessary corrections, including addressing grammar and punctuation errors, aligning references with the prescribed journal format (numeric), ensuring the inclusion of missing sections, and rectifying various punctuation problems. Additionally, we have revised the Abstract to address grammar problems and ensure clarity (lines 18-26).

2. Can this singular operation truly be representative of all interventions carried out in China?

Our study is designed as a single-case study for in-depth field research and design study. We supplement the three criteria for case selection in "2.2. Case Selection" (lines 149-179). These criteria emphasize the importance of choosing a representative Chinese SITES certified project, opting for certified projects over pre-certified ones, and selecting projects that are feasible for on-site research and publicly accessible. Given the early stage of SITES certification in China, where only three projects have been certified, and considering factors such as data collection, project openness, and permission for public disclosure, we have chosen the Xuhui Runway Park in Shanghai as the sole eligible project for on-site research.

We reference Yin (2013) on the appropriateness of single-case study design, noting its suitability in certain situations. As the first certified Chinese project, the Xuhui Runway Park is sufficiently typical, and through in-depth research and cross-analysis of data, it effectively reflects SITES's actual impact on Chinese urban green space projects.

As the promotion of SITES in China progresses, it is expected to unveil additional cases that offer valuable insights for future research endeavors. We recognize the promising avenue of multi-case cross-studies as SITES gains momentum in China, offering an expanding pool of cases for research. These points are further supplemented in "5.2. Research Limitations" (lines 600-620) and "5.3. Research Outlook" (lines 621-636).

3. Restructuring articles and enhancing methodological clarity and framework

To address your suggestion, we have reorganized and clarified the manuscript's structure, including but not limited to modifying the introduction to explicitly state the research questions, knowledge gaps, and the significance of conducting localized SITES research in China. Additionally, we have enriched the review section (lines 95-136), providing insights into the development and gaps in sustainable labeling and policies in China, along with the current status and gaps in SITES research. The methodological content has been expanded (lines 204-233), and we have included additional discussions in Chapter Four (lines 482-554). Provided explanations and analysis for the description of data sources (lines 253-261). The number of references has also been supplemented.

About methodological clarity and framework, we have introduced a new section titled "2.4. Research Framework," (lines 205-232) providing a detailed exposition on the Unit of Analysis and Embedded Unit of Analysis. Specifically, four stages of the landscape architecture project's lifecycle are considered as embedded units of analysis. Each of these four embedded units of analysis is thoroughly described, followed by cross-analysis for validation. Ultimately, the study aims to analyze and summarize the findings to draw research conclusions. The inclusion of Figure 1, a Landscape Architecture Project Process Diagram, further enhances the visual clarity of the methodological approach, making the article more lucid at the methodological and framework levels.

4. Supplementation of the scoring and rating system.

Your suggestion is crucial, and we have addressed it by supplementing the information on the scoring and rating system used in the Xuhui Runway Park project. We have included Table 1, which provides the SITES Scores for Xuhui Runway Park, and Figure 4, illustrating the analysis of SITES Scores for the park. These additions enhance the objectivity of the paper's analysis and contribute to readers' understanding of the specific analytical content in subsequent sections.

5. Supplementation of the discussion in the context of Chinese additions

In order to enhancing clarity and justification in addressing SITES improvements and promotion in China, and considering both the Chinese and international contexts. We have introduced a section titled "4. Applicability and Limitations of the SITES in China." (lines 482-554) This section provides a comprehensive exploration of urban green space construction in China and thoroughly examines the applicability and limitations of the SITES framework within this context. To address the identified need for improvements in SITES indicators and promotion in China, we have highlighted four key aspects: (1) Incomplete alignment with Chinese standards and specifications. (2) Imbalanced scoring weightings. (3) Insufficient policy support. (4) Limited Promotion (lines 514-554). These refinements aim to enhance the clarity and justification of our claims and suggestions, bolstering the paper's credibility and scientific rigor.

In addition, we have made adjustments to other aspects of the paper, including but not limited to: detailed analysis and recommendations for the construction phase with low scores, as well as the deletion of certain content.

Thank you for your valuable feedback and thoughtful suggestions again. Your insights have been instrumental in enhancing the quality of our manuscript. We appreciate your time and effort in reviewing our work.

Best regards,

Authors.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see the attached report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

In general, the quality of the English language is good, but some grammatical errors need to be addressed.

Author Response

Response to reviewer

Research on the Application of SITES Rating System in Urban Green Space Construction in China—A Case Study of Xuhui Runway Park

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your thoughtful comments on our manuscript. Under your guidance, I have had the opportunity to refine my research and have gained considerable benefits from your feedback. The following responses provide detailed explanations and modifications in addressing the main issues you raised:

1. Introduction:

• To address your suggestion, we have clarified the problem statement and framed the research purpose in the introduction. The revised introduction emphasizes the significance of the SITES system in addressing the lack of a standardized system for sustainable landscape construction in China. We explicitly state the research problem, knowledge gaps, and questions investigated, highlighting the unique contribution of our study.
• Additionally, we have enriched the review section (lines 95-136). Enriched the manuscript by providing a comprehensive overview of China's emphasis on sustainable development, including the historical context and existing standards. Additionally, we incorporated insights from scholars who have studied the application of the SITES system in China, emphasizing its guidance role and gradual acceptance as a standard for sustainable landscape assessment. The revised content aims to fill the research gap by highlighting the need for in-depth discussions on the SITES system's applicability in Chinese landscape projects, considering the unique construction environments in the country.

2. Methods:

• Our study is designed as a single-case study for in-depth field research and design study. We supplement the three criteria for case selection in "2.2. Case Selection" (lines 149-179). These criteria emphasize the importance of choosing a representative Chinese SITES certified project, opting for certified projects over pre-certified ones, and selecting projects that are feasible for on-site research and publicly accessible. Given the early stage of SITES certification in China, where only three projects have been certified, and considering factors such as data collection, project openness, and permission for public disclosure, we have chosen the Xuhui Runway Park in Shanghai as the sole eligible project for on-site research.
• We reference Yin (2013) on the appropriateness of single-case study design, noting its suitability in certain situations. As the first certified Chinese project, the Xuhui Runway Park is sufficiently typical, and through in-depth research and cross-analysis of data, it effectively reflects SITES's actual impact on Chinese urban green space projects.
• As the promotion of SITES in China progresses, it is expected to unveil additional cases that offer valuable insights for future research endeavors. We recognize the promising avenue of multi-case cross-studies as SITES gains momentum in China, offering an expanding pool of cases for research. These points are further supplemented in "5.2. Research Limitations" (lines 600-620) and "5.3. Research Outlook" (lines 621-636).

3. Results/Discussion:

• In order to enhancing clarity and justification in addressing SITES improvements and promotion in China, and considering both the Chinese and international contexts. We have introduced a section titled "4. Applicability and Limitations of the SITES in China." (lines 482-554). A critical analysis of the SITES application process is crucial, this section provides a comprehensive exploration of urban green space construction in China and thoroughly examines the applicability and limitations of the SITES framework within this context. To address the identified need for improvements in SITES indicators and promotion in China, we have highlighted four key aspects: (1) Incomplete alignment with Chinese standards and specifications. (2) Imbalanced scoring weightings. (3) Insufficient policy support. (4) Limited Promotion (lines 514-554). The revisions made intend to improve the clarity and justification of our claims and suggestions, thereby strengthening the paper's credibility and scientific rigor.
• Regrettably, we did not collect viewpoints from all stakeholders as suggested. However, we have made efforts to supplement this aspect. Specifically, in addressing the low-scoring construction part of Xuhui Runway Park, we provided additional information on the issues encountered in design-construction integration, offered relevant recommendations, and illustrated the relationship through Figure 9: Design-Construction Integration Relationship Model Diagram. We hope this adds valuable insights to the paper.
• In addition, we have addressed it by supplementing the information on the scoring and rating system used in the Xuhui Runway Park project. We have included Table 1, which provides the SITES Scores for Xuhui Runway Park, and Figure 4, illustrating the analysis of SITES Scores for the park. These additions enhance the objectivity of the paper's analysis and contribute to readers' understanding of the specific analytical content in subsequent sections.

 

Thank you for your valuable feedback and thoughtful suggestions again. Your insights have been instrumental in enhancing the quality of our manuscript. We appreciate your time and effort in reviewing our work.

Best regards,

Authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

This manuscript underwent a significant major revision, and the authors have made commendable improvements. The revised manuscript is considerably clearer, more organized, and more objective than its previous version. Several aspects that initially led to my decision to reject the manuscript, such as the chaotic organization of the document, lack of careful revision in terms of formatting and grammar, overly descriptive nature, and insufficient details about the materials and data used, have been significantly addressed and improved. In light of this new version, I offer the following comments and suggestions for the authors to consider, aiming to further enhance the clarity and quality of this work:

Structure: In my view, the manuscript still has some issues, including a significant number of sections and subsections, and an entire paragraph (starting at line 30) without any title (should it be the Introduction?). I recommend that the authors reduce the number of subsections to achieve a more formal organization, including Introduction, Background, Methodology or Materials and Data, Results and Discussion, and Conclusion. This will make the manuscript much better organized and easier to follow. The English has improved, with fewer grammar problems; however, the document still has some issues, including in the abstract. For example:

Abstract, line 23: The sentence should start as follows: “By evaluating the applicability…”.

Line 45: It should be “with” and not “With”.

Line 79: A full stop is missing in this sentence. The same is valid for line 169.

Check if it is really necessary to have “Research on the” in the title. In my view, “Application of the SITES Rating System in Urban Green Space Construction in China—A Case Study of Xuhui Runway Park” would be a more appealing title.

 

Content: There are also some issues related with the content.  I liked the improvements made to modifying the introduction, knowledge gaps, and the significance of conducting localized SITES research in China. But there are some issues requiring further explanation:

The concept of sustainable development presented in the first paragraph should be improved. Many references could be used to support this framework, such as the work below published in Sustainability that aligns the concept of sustainable development within the sustainable development goals of the UN:

Psara et al. (2023) Evaluation of urban sustainability based on transportation and 3 green spaces: the case of Limassol, Cyprus.

Line 46: Could you please provide a description of how the concept of sustainability landscape should be understood within this work?

Contrary to what was stated in the authors’ response letter (point 3), which mentioned: “…structure, including but not limited to modifying the introduction to explicitly state the research questions…”, I did not find any research questions in this manuscript…

Lines 185-186: Please furnish examples (references) of the documents mentioned, specifically case-related research papers, government planning documents, and other publicly available sources.

Line 206: Kindly clarify the meaning of this sentence.

Figure 3: As these two images are from different periods, I recommend that the authors include their respective years.

In Section 3 (page 6), could the authors provide additional data about Xuhui Runway Park, such as its area, the area of green spaces, existing facilities, connections with the city, etc.? While some of this information is provided later, incorporating it here would be useful to illustrate the case study.

During the results, it is also unclear about the sources of information used to evaluate the actions taken in Xuhui Runway Park in the various phases analyzed. Including the source data/references will strengthen and make the analysis more objective.

The practical contributions of the interviews conducted are unclear. With only one exception (page 12), the document does not explore the content of the conducted interviews. I recommend that the authors include more information retrieved from the interviews in the text.

While the Discussion has improved, it still lacks a dialogue with the existing literature. Try to discuss the findings and practical implications of this study in China in accordance with the existing literature.

Thank you.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Cover letter

Manuscript ID: land-2806767

 

Dear Reviewer & Editor,

 

I hope this letter finds you well. I am writing to submit the revised manuscript entitled "Application of SITES Rating System in Urban Green Space Construction in China—A Case Study of Xuhui Runway Park". I would like to express my gratitude for the constructive feedback provided by the reviewers, which has greatly contributed to the improvement of our manuscript.

 

In response to the reviewers' comments, we have made several adjustments to enhance the manuscript:

 

1. Title:

• We have revised the title as suggested to align with the reviewer's recommendation. Change into “Application of SITES Rating System in Urban Green Space Construction in China—A Case Study of Xuhui Runway Park"

2. Structure:

• The manuscript has been restructured to include Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion, and Conclusions sections, as per the suggested manuscript structure.

3. Grammar, Punctuation, and Format:

• Corrections have been made to grammar, punctuation, and format errors as pointed out by the reviewers in lines 23, 49, 86, and 176.

4. Content:

• Lines 31-36. Expanded the description of sustainable development concepts.
• Lines 52-56. Added discussions on sustainable landscape concepts.
• Lines 194-197. Provided examples (references) of the documents mentioned.
• Lines 215. Rewrote unclear expressions for better clarity.
• Figure 3. It is an indirect citation, we checked the source of the image and it was more difficult to find the year information, therefore it is not labeled.
• Lines 249-254. Provided additional data about Xuhui Runway Park.
• Lines 371-376, 481-487, 566, 575. Included interview information in various sections of the manuscript.

4. Conclusion:

• Lines 583-597. The conclusion section was added to emphasize the practical significance of the study in China in the context of the current status of the study.

 

We believe that these revisions have significantly improved the manuscript and addressed the concerns raised by the reviewers.

 

We look forward to hearing from you regarding the further steps in the review process.

 

Warm regards,

Authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors address all of my comments. 

Author Response

Thank you.