Urban Parks and Office Workers’ Health: Considering the Influence of Marital Status and Different Qualities of Urban Parks

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review of “Urban Parks and Office Workers' Health: Considering the Influence of Marital Status and Different Urban Parks”

The study exploring the relationships between landscape quality, leisure time in the parks, place attachment, and self-rated health among 411 office workers aged 18 to 40, using Baise City, China as sample sites for a parallel controlled experiment. The article selected a good topic, that has a certain significance. Having carefully reviewed and evaluated manuscript, the reviewer would like the authors to improve this article by following the comments above:

Introduction:

1.      The introduction section is suggested to be divided into three sub-sections: introduction, literature review, hypothesis. Moreover, research hypotheses should be put together instead of separated.

2.      Please add the typicality of the case in Baise city, China.

3.      The authors could put the part of “research framework” into the Chapter 2.

Materials and methods:

1.      The title of “2. Materials and methods” could be revised as “2. Research design”.

2.      G-Power should be revised as G*Power in line 175.

3.      Scale should be added in Figure 2 to make it more normative and scientific in map visualization.

4.      Key model formula could be provided in the section of “2.3 Analytic techniques”.

Results:

1.      In line 226 and line 229, the table’s number should be added.

Discussion:

1.        The title of “4. Conclusions” should be revised as “4. Discussion”.

2.        Currently, the authors discuss the research differences and sorting out previous literature in identification results without delving into the theoretical contribution.

Conclusion:

1.      The authors could divide the conclusion section into two parts: main findings and optimization suggestions.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer Sheet

Thank you for the opportunity to revise and resubmit our manuscript. We highly appreciate the reviewers' thoughtful and detailed comments and suggestions. Below, we respond to each of the reviewer's comments in detail. In addition, we include how we have revised things, or if we have slightly disagreed with something, we state why. We detailed below each comment and our actions/revisions. Changes are highlighted in Yellow in the manuscript. We hope that the reviewers will find our responses to their comments satisfactory.

Response to Reviewer #1’s comments:

The study exploring the relationships between landscape quality, leisure time in the parks, place attachment, and self-rated health among 411 office workers aged 18 to 40, using Baise City, China as sample sites for a parallel controlled experiment. The article selected a good topic, that has a certain significance. Having carefully reviewed and evaluated manuscript, the reviewer would like the authors to improve this article by following the comments above:

Comment (1.1):

The introduction section is suggested to be divided into three sub-sections: introduction, literature review, hypothesis. Moreover, research hypotheses should be put together instead of separated.

Thank you for your valuable feedback. In response to your suggestion, we have reorganized the introduction section to enhance clarity and coherence. The revised structure now includes two distinct sub-sections: "Introduction" and "Literature Review and Hypotheses."

Introduction (pages 1-2): This section now provides a detailed background on urban parks, office workers, and the broader social context within which the study is situated.

Literature Review and Hypotheses (pages 2-4): We have combined the literature review and research hypotheses into a single section to better integrate the theoretical foundation with the study’s hypotheses. This section is divided into: 2.1 Urban Parks and Young Office Workers, 2.2 Leisure Time Spent in Parks and Self-Rated Health, 2.3 Marital Status, and 2.4 Different Qualities of Urban Parks. Each subsection provides a detailed discussion of the relevant literature. Additionally, all research hypotheses are consolidated into Section 2.5 (Hypotheses and Theoretical Model) (see pages 4-5) to improve clarity and avoid redundancy.

We believe these changes significantly enhance the readability and coherence of the introduction section.

Comment (1.2):

Please add the typicality of the case in Baise city, China.

We have revised the manuscript to include a detailed discussion of the typicality of the case in Baise City, China.

The updated text now states: “Baise is a representative small city in southwest China, characterized by remarkable economic growth and a gradual increase in office workers (Guangxi Daily, 2023). Despite its high greening rate, which theoretically should promote social welfare and enhance public health (Baise City People's Government Office, 2021), continuous industrialization and urbanization have led to increased incidences of hypertension and fatty liver among employees since 2010 (Nong et al., 2010). By 2021, Baise's residents still had lower health literacy levels compared to other cities in Guangxi (Guangxi News Network, 2022).” (see page 3)

Additionally, we include: “As outcomes of the ongoing wave of urban park development in China, nearly every small city has an old People's Park and one or more newly built modern urban parks (China Garden Museum, 2022). Baise City has two comprehensive urban parks serving all residents: the old-fashioned People's Park and the modern Peninsula Park.” (see page 3)

We believe these revisions have highlighted the typicality of Baise City.

Comment (1.3):

The authors could put the part of “research framework” into the Chapter 2.

Thank you for your suggestion. Considering that the research framework is closely linked with both the hypotheses and the literature review, we have incorporated it into Section 2.5, which covers the hypotheses and the theoretical model (pages 4-5). This integration aligns with common practices in papers and helps to clearly illustrate the relationships our study builds upon from the literature review. We believe this structural adjustment enhances the clarity of the study’s conceptual connections and theoretical basis. We hope this revised arrangement meets your expectations and improves the overall coherence of the manuscript.

Comment (1.4):

The title of “2. Materials and methods” could be revised as “2. Research design”.

Thank you for your suggestion to revise the title of Section 2 to “2. Research Design.” However, we believe that “2. Materials and Methods” is more appropriate for the content presented in this section. The title “Materials and Methods” more accurately reflects the detailed account of the materials, tools, participants, and specific procedures used in our study.

In our manuscript, this section covers the study context (including the study area and participants), measures (such as study variables and items), and analytic techniques. These elements align closely with the detailed and practical focus implied by “Materials and Methods.” Conversely, “Research Design” generally refers to an overview of the overall research plan or strategy.

Given this alignment, we respectfully request to retain the title “2. Materials and Methods” as it better reflects the content and purpose of this section. We hope this explanation clarifies our reasoning and meets with your approval.

Comment (1.5):

G-Power should be revised as G*Power in line 175.

We appreciate your detailed observation regarding the notation of G-Power. We have revised the text to use “G*Power” to ensure accuracy and alignment with the correct terminology. Thank you for pointing this out.

Comment (1.6):

Scale should be added in Figure 2 to make it more normative and scientific in map visualization.

Thank you for your insightful suggestion regarding the inclusion of a scale in the map of the study area. We have updated the map, now labeled as Figure 1 following the manuscript revisions, to include a scale, ensuring it meets scientific and normative standards for map visualization (page 4, line 163).

Comment (1.7):

Key model formula could be provided in the section of “2.3 Analytic techniques”.

We have added Key model formulas, such as “PLS algorithm in SmartPLS 3.0,” “Multi-group Analysis (MGA) package in PLS 3.0,” “Chi-square test,” and “independent sample t-test” in the section of “3.3 Analytic techniques” (page 7).

Comment (1.8):

In line 226 and line 229, the table’s number should be added.

Thank you for your careful review. We have added the table numbers (lines 220-261).

Comment (1.9):

The title of “4. Conclusions” should be revised as “4. Discussion”.

Thank you for your attention to detail regarding the similarity in the titles; we have revised it accordingly.

Comment (1.10):

Currently, the authors discuss the research differences and sorting out previous literature in identification results without delving into the theoretical contribution.

We appreciate your comment and we also acknowledge the need to more thoroughly discuss the theoretical contributions of our research. We have revised the manuscript to include a deeper analysis of how our findings contribute to the existing body of literature, clearly highlighting the theoretical implications and advancements introduced by our study. For details please refer to page 12, section 5.2 Strengths, limitations, and future directions.

Comment (1.11):

The authors could divide the conclusion section into two parts: main findings and optimization suggestions.

Thank you for your constructive suggestion regarding the conclusion section. We have revised it to include two distinct parts: "Main Findings" and "Optimization Suggestions." For example, in the "Optimization Suggestions" section, detail refers to section 6. Conclusion, pages 12-13.

 

We thank the reviewers for these valuable comments. We have tried our best to address all the issues raised and we hope that the reviewers will find the revised version acceptable. 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The reviewed article undoubtedly fits well with the theme of the special issue of the journal as it addresses one of the many aspects of how people function in the wake of the Covid 19 pandemic outbreak. 

The article raises no major stylistic or linguistic concerns. However, in the reviewer's opinion, some content should be added to the introduction and conclusion. The former would relate to the Healthy China strategy as well as the principles of sustainable development to which the analyses refer.

The author vaguely mentions several times that the research results provide support for the fulfilment of Sustainable Development Goal 11 and the Healthy China strategy, but does not explain anything further. For the reader who is not familiar with the above-mentioned policies, it will be useful to briefly outline them as background to the research carried out. 

As for the conclusion. There are two sections in the text entitled ‘Conclusion/Conclusions’. In addition, they present similar content. Thus, it is difficult to determine which one constitutes the actual conclusion. It can be assumed that part 4 should be ‘Discussion’.  And in it, it would already be worthwhile to concretely relate the results of the research to specific points in the Healthy China Strategy and the principles of sustainable development. In this way, the parks analysed would not just be single case studies, but would be set in a broader context and within a certain theoretical framework. 

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer Sheet

Thank you for the opportunity to revise and resubmit our manuscript. We highly appreciate the reviewers' thoughtful and detailed comments and suggestions. Below, we respond to each of the reviewer's comments in detail. In addition, we include how we have revised things, or if we have slightly disagreed with something, we state why. We detailed below each comment and our actions/revisions. Changes are highlighted in Yellow in the manuscript. We hope that the reviewers will find our responses to their comments satisfactory.

Response to Reviewer #2’s comments:

The reviewed article undoubtedly fits well with the theme of the special issue of the journal as it addresses one of the many aspects of how people function in the wake of the Covid 19 pandemic outbreak. The article raises no major stylistic or linguistic concerns.

Thank you for recognizing the alignment of our article with the theme of the special issue, sincerely appreciate your positive feedback.

Comment (2.1):

However, in the reviewer's opinion, some content should be added to the introduction and conclusion. The former would relate to the Healthy China strategy as well as the principles of sustainable development to which the analyses refer. The author vaguely mentions several times that the research results provide support for the fulfilment of Sustainable Development Goal 11 and the Healthy China strategy, but does not explain anything further. For the reader who is not familiar with the above-mentioned policies, it will be useful to briefly outline them as background to the research carried out.

Thank you for your feedback. We have revised both the introduction and conclusion to better connect our research with the Healthy China strategy and Sustainable Development Goal 11.

Introduction (page 2): We now include a brief overview of the Healthy China strategy and SDG 11.7. The revised text states: “Despite advancements in public health in China from 2015 to 2020, challenges persist due to urbanization, ecological changes, and lifestyle shifts. These challenges include increasing rates of chronic disease, a trend toward younger onset of health issues, and ongoing occupational health problems (The State Council of China, 2022). Such issues complicate efforts to meet the Healthy China 2030 goals, which focus on improving overall health, promoting healthy lifestyles, and ensuring balanced economic and social development (CPC Central Committee & State Council, 2016). Additionally, urban parks, essential for supporting resident health, are plagued by inequity issues due to China’s large and diverse population (Lu et al., 2024). This inequity presents a challenge to achieving Sustainable Development Goal 11.7, which aims to provide universal access to safe, inclusive, and accessible green spaces by 2030 (United Nations, 2015).” (see page 2).

5.1 Key findings (page 11, second paragraph): We have elaborated on how our findings contribute to the fulfilment of these goals: “However, it is concerning that single office workers, despite potentially benefiting more from green space exposure, actually spend less time in parks and, as a result, report lower landscape quality, PA, and self-rated health compared to married individuals. This paradox highlights the urgent need for targeted interventions to increase park engagement among groups currently underutilizing these spaces. To fully realize the well-being potential of urban parks and align with SDG 11.7's goal of universal access to safe and inclusive green spaces (United Nations, 2015), strategies must be developed to encourage more frequent and prolonged park visits among these populations.”

Section 6. Conclusion (page 13, the second paragraph): We emphasize that: “It suggests that effective occupational health interventions should extend beyond traditional work environments (Lei et al., 2024) and the creation of decent workspaces (Elshater et al., 2022) to include outdoor green spaces like urban parks. This introduces a fresh perspective for developing physical health interventions for occupational groups, as outlined in the Healthy China 2030 strategy (CPC Central Committee & State Council, 2016).

Comment (2.2):

As for the conclusion. There are two sections in the text entitled ‘Conclusion/Conclusions’. In addition, they present similar content. Thus, it is difficult to determine which one constitutes the actual conclusion. It can be assumed that part 4 should be ‘Discussion’. And in it, it would already be worthwhile to concretely relate the results of the research to specific points in the Healthy China Strategy and the principles of sustainable development. In this way, the parks analysed would not just be single case studies, but would be set in a broader context and within a certain theoretical framework.

Thank you for pointing out the issue with the duplicate sections and the need for clearer differentiation between them. We have revised the manuscript to resolve this:

1. Section Title Changes: We have renamed Section 5 to "Discussion" to better reflect its content and differentiate it from the actual conclusion.
2. Integration of Results with Policies: We have also addressed the feedback about relating the results to the Healthy China Strategy and Sustainable Development Goals in the revised "Discussion" section. For details on how we have integrated these aspects, please refer to our response to comment (2.1).

 

 

 

We thank the reviewers for these valuable comments. We have tried our best to address all the issues raised and we hope that the reviewers will find the revised version acceptable.  

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study focuses on the relationships between urban park usage and self-rated health in Baise City, empirically identifying the impact of park type, leisure time, marital status, and place attachment. It contributes to current studies on urban parks' influences on well-being and self-rated health. Here are some minor issues that should be addressed for publication:

 

1. The current title, which includes "different urban parks," is a bit vague. Please be more specific, such as mentioning different types/styles/qualities of urban parks. This will highlight the paper's contributions more effectively.

 

2. Place attachment is a key characteristic in the analysis. Provide a clearer definition and explanation of this term when it is first introduced. Explain how it is measured and its relevance to the study.

 

3. Reorganize the abstract to enhance logic and clarity and to highlight the findings. The current version lists findings but lacks coherence. Address potential conflicting statements. For example: For example "Although the leisure time spent in the park does not have a significant direct relationship with self-rated health, place attachment, and marital status catalyze the link significantly." indicates that there is no significant direct relationship between leisure time and self-rated health. However, "the leisure time spent in parks positively affected self-rated health for single 17 workers but negatively for married workers." indicates that it has a positive or negative relationship for different sociodemographic groups.

 

4. Line 202: "The PLS-SEM (partial least squares structural equation modeling) technique" should be written as "The partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) technique" to place the abbreviation after the full terminology.

 

5. Some coefficients in Figure 3 are overlapped, affecting readability. Adjust the layout or use callouts to ensure all coefficients are clear and easily readable.

 

6. Line 214: Provide more details about SmartPLS or add a reference to justify the choice of the analysis platform. 

 

   By addressing these points, the manuscript will be clearer, more logical, and better highlight its contributions.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer Sheet

Thank you for the opportunity to revise and resubmit our manuscript. We highly appreciate the reviewers' thoughtful and detailed comments and suggestions. Below, we respond to each of the reviewer's comments in detail. In addition, we include how we have revised things, or if we have slightly disagreed with something, we state why. We detailed below each comment and our actions/revisions. Changes are highlighted in Yellow in the manuscript. We hope that the reviewers will find our responses to their comments satisfactory.

Response to Reviewer #3’s comments:

This study focuses on the relationships between urban park usage and self-rated health in Baise City, empirically identifying the impact of park type, leisure time, marital status, and place attachment. It contributes to current studies on urban parks' influences on well-being and self-rated health. Here are some minor issues that should be addressed for publication:

Thank you for acknowledging the significance of our study in recognizing its contributions to the broader discourse on urban parks and well-being. We appreciate your constructive feedback and will address the minor issues you have identified to ensure the manuscript meets the publication standards.

Comment (3.1):

The current title, which includes "different urban parks," is a bit vague. Please be more specific, such as mentioning different types/styles/qualities of urban parks. This will highlight the paper's contributions more effectively.

Thank you for your suggestion. We have revised the title to more accurately reflect the focus of our study: "Urban Parks and Office Workers' Health: Considering the Influence of Marital Status and Different Qualities of Urban Parks." This new title highlights the impact of varying park qualities on users' psychological perceptions and health.

To ensure consistency, we have also updated Section 2.4, "Different Qualities of Urban Parks," to clarify this term. We now state: " However, actual usage patterns do not align with these expectations. This discrepancy reveals a research gap in understanding how the quality differences between old-fashioned and modern urban parks affect user visits, PA, self-rated health, and perceptions of park equity." (see page 4).

We believe these changes effectively highlight the paper’s contributions and address your concerns.

Comment (3.2):

Place attachment is a key characteristic in the analysis. Provide a clearer definition and explanation of this term when it is first introduced. Explain how it is measured and its relevance to the study.

Thank you for highlighting the importance of clearly defining "place attachment." In response, we have revised the manuscript to provide a more detailed definition and explanation of this term when it was first introduced. We have also included information on how place attachment is measured and its relevance to our study. These updates can be found in section 2.1 Urban parks and young office workers, page 2.

Comment (3.3):

Reorganize the abstract to enhance logic and clarity and to highlight the findings. The current version lists findings but lacks coherence. Address potential conflicting statements. For example "Although the leisure time spent in the park does not have a significant direct relationship with self-rated health, place attachment, and marital status catalyze the link significantly." indicates that there is no significant direct relationship between leisure time and self-rated health. However, "the leisure time spent in parks positively affected self-rated health for single 17 workers but negatively for married workers." indicates that it has a positive or negative relationship for different sociodemographic groups.

Thank you for your valuable feedback on the abstract. We have reorganized it to enhance coherence and highlight the key findings more clearly. The revised abstract now explicitly states: “Leisure time spent in parks did not directly impact self-rated health but was mediated by place attachment. MGA results indicated that while leisure time in parks positively affected self-rated health for single participants, it had a negative effect for married participants. These results underscore the importance of tailoring urban park design and management to accommodate the varying needs of different demographics.” We hope these revisions provide a more coherent and precise summary of our findings and meet with your approval.

Comment (3.4):

Line 202: "The PLS-SEM (partial least squares structural equation modeling) technique" should be written as "The partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) technique" to place the abbreviation after the full terminology.

Thank you for pointing out the formatting issue. We have revised the text to correctly present the abbreviation after the full terminology. It now reads: "The partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) technique" (see page 7, line 225).

Comment (3.5):

Some coefficients in Figure 3 are overlapped, affecting readability. Adjust the layout or use callouts to ensure all coefficients are clear and easily readable.

We have adjusted the layout and used callouts to ensure that all coefficients are clear and easily readable. These changes should improve the clarity and overall presentation of Figure 3 (page 7).

Comment (3.6):

Line 214: Provide more details about SmartPLS or add a reference to justify the choice of the analysis platform.

Thank you for your suggestion. In Section 3.3 "Analytic Techniques" (page 7), we have now clarified that SmartPLS was chosen for its ability to handle complex models with multiple latent variables, which is crucial for our study. Additionally, SmartPLS is widely used and recognized for its efficiency in both exploratory and confirmatory analyses in social sciences research. To further justify our choice, we have added the following reference:

Hair Jr, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., Danks, N. P., & Ray, S. (2021). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) using R: A workbook. Springer Nature.

This reference supports the advantages of using PLS-SEM and aligns with the methodological needs of our study.

 

We thank the reviewers for these valuable comments. We have tried our best to address all the issues raised and we hope that the reviewers will find the revised version acceptable. 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript investigates the relationship between urban parks, office workers' health, and the moderating effect of marital status. The topic is relevant and timely, considering the growing interest in urban green spaces and their impact on public health. The study's objective is clear, and the methodology is generally sound. However, several areas require further clarification and improvement.

1- Abstract: The abstract provides a concise summary of the study, but it would benefit from including specific findings and their implications.

2- Introduction:

• The introduction is well-written and provides a good background on the importance of urban parks and their potential health benefits.
• The rationale for including marital status as a moderating variable should be elaborated to justify its inclusion more convincingly.

Literature Review: There is no separate section for the literature review, which is okay. However, I prefer to add a short section that describes the main definitions, such as place attachment and marital status. Besides, there is a need for a more explicit connection between the reviewed literature and the current study's research questions.

Methodology: The study design, sampling method, and data collection procedures are adequately described. The authors should provide more details on the specific types of urban parks included in the study. The statistical methods used for data analysis are appropriate, but the justification for certain techniques should be clarified. Otherwise, this matter should be added as a limitation of this study.

Results:

• The results are presented clearly, with appropriate use of tables and figures.
• The authors should provide a more detailed interpretation of the findings, especially concerning the influence of marital status on the relationship between urban parks and health.

Discussion: On page 11, line 335, I can see that the discussion was written as Conclusions. I prefer to change this title to "Discussion" as there is another title on Page 13, Line 440, named Conclusion. After this minor modification, the discussion effectively summarizes the main findings and their implications. Linking the current results to prior studies is essential. Here, I recommend reviewing these similar challenges in other contexts.

DOI: 10.3390/su14031699 that addresses the workers' stratification

DOI: 10.3390/su15139883 discusses the requirements of the working environment.

Conclusion:

• The Conclusion briefly reiterates the critical points of the study.
• The authors have addressed the study's limitations, but it should be more comprehensive alongside the suggested directions for future research.
• It would be beneficial to highlight the practical implications of the findings for urban planners and policymakers.

References: The references are generally up-to-date and relevant. It is recommended that all references be formatted according to the journal's guidelines.

Specific Comments:

1. Introduction (Page 2, Paragraph 3): Elaborate on the choice of marital status as a moderating variable.
2. Methodology (Page 4, Section 2.2): Provide more details on the types of urban parks included.
3. Results (Page 6, Table 2): Explain the rationale for the statistical techniques used in the analysis.
4. Discussion (Page 8, Paragraph 2): Discuss the study's limitations in more detail.

Overall Recommendation:

• Minor Revisions Required: The manuscript presents a valuable contribution to the field but requires minor revisions to enhance its clarity and impact. The authors should address the specific comments provided to improve the overall quality of the paper.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer Sheet

Thank you for the opportunity to revise and resubmit our manuscript. We highly appreciate the reviewers' thoughtful and detailed comments and suggestions. Below, we respond to each of the reviewer's comments in detail. In addition, we include how we have revised things, or if we have slightly disagreed with something, we state why. We detailed below each comment and our actions/revisions. Changes are highlighted in Yellow in the manuscript. We hope that the reviewers will find our responses to their comments satisfactory.

Response to Reviewer #4’s comments:

Comment (4.1):

The manuscript investigates the relationship between urban parks, office workers' health, and the moderating effect of marital status. The topic is relevant and timely, considering the growing interest in urban green spaces and their impact on public health. The study's objective is clear, and the methodology is generally sound. However, several areas require further clarification and improvement. The manuscript presents a valuable contribution to the field but requires minor revisions to enhance its clarity and impact. The authors should address the specific comments provided to improve the overall quality of the paper.

We appreciate your recognition of the study’s relevance and contribution to the field. We will carefully address the areas requiring clarification and improvement, as well as the specific comments provided, to enhance the overall quality and impact of the manuscript.

Comment (4.2):

The abstract provides a concise summary of the study, but it would benefit from including specific findings and their implications.

Thank you for your feedback on the abstract. We have revised it to include specific findings and their implications for greater clarity and impact. The updated abstract now reads:

“MGA results indicated that while leisure time in parks positively affected self-rated health for single participants, it had a negative effect for married participants. These results underscore the importance of tailoring urban park design and management to accommodate the varying needs of different demographics. This research provides new insights into enhancing office workers’ self-rated health through environmental design and supports the objectives of the Healthy China strategy and Sustainable Development Goal 11.”

Comment (4.3):

The introduction is well-written and provides a good background on the importance of urban parks and their potential health benefits.

Thank you for your positive feedback on the introduction.

Comment (4.4):

The rationale for including marital status as a moderating variable should be elaborated to justify its inclusion more convincingly. Introduction (Page 2, Paragraph 3): Elaborate on the choice of marital status as a moderating variable.

Thank you for your feedback. We have elaborated on the rationale for including marital status as a moderating variable in the revised introduction. Here is a summary of our justification (see section 2.3 Marital status, page 3):

Unique Influence of Marital Status: Marital status has been shown to have distinct effects on psychological and social outcomes, studies have found that single individuals tend to experience higher levels of pandemic-related distress compared to married individuals (Thomeer, 2022; Tsang et al., 2023). However, while the therapeutic effects of green experiences are more pronounced for those under significant mental and physical stress (e.g., single individuals) (Wang & Li, 2022), studies on urban park usage indicate that married individuals are more likely to engage in family activities and develop strong PA to parks (Miao et al., 2023).

Research Gap and Focus: Given that marital status is a significant factor among young office workers (Ortiz-Ospina & Roser, 2020), an important research question arises: How does marital status influence the relationships between urban park landscape quality, leisure time spent in parks, PA, and self-rated health among young office workers? Addressing this question could provide valuable insights into park service disparities and offer evidence for designing targeted urban park interventions to enhance the mental health of young office workers based on their demographic characteristics.

Empirical Evidence and Validation: Our analysis, using MGA and SPSS Independent-samples t-tests (page 10), as well as the discussion in the results section (page 11), demonstrates that marital status brought notable findings that make our research more significant and scientific. This evidence underscores the relevance and importance of including marital status as a key variable in our study.

Comment (4.5):

There is no separate section for the literature review, which is okay. However, I prefer to add a short section that describes the main definitions, such as place attachment and marital status.

Thank you for your feedback. We have separated the introduction from the literature review to enhance clarity. Key terms are now defined as follows:

1. Place Attachment: Defined in Section 2.1 "Urban Parks and Young Office Workers" (page 2).
2. Marital Status: Defined in Section 2.3 "Marital Status" (page 3).

Comment (4.6):

Besides, there is a need for a more explicit connection between the reviewed literature and the current study's research questions.

We have revised the literature review to more explicitly connect key findings with the study's research questions.

For example, in section 2.1 Urban parks and young office workers (page 2), we state that “Although existing research indicates that urban parks enhance residents’ mental well-being by fostering place attachment (PA) (Doughty et al., 2023; Safizadeh et al., 2024), many young workers in this age group tend to develop phone hedonistic habits (Matsuo & So, 2021) and are less likely to engage in regular exercise in urban parks compared to older adults (Matsuo & So, 2021). Instead, they often rely on other coping mechanisms, such as alcohol and smoking, to manage stress (Lee et al., 2021). This makes it unclear how urban parks connect to the self-rated health of young office workers.”

We have also added transitional statements that better articulate how the gaps identified in the literature inform the focus and objectives of my research. Such as, we state “Accordingly, to contribute to the understanding of how urban park landscape quality influences young office workers’ self-rated health, considering the mediating effect of PA, this study proposes the following two hypotheses” (section 2.5 Hypotheses and theoretical model, page 5).

These revisions should provide a more coherent and logical flow, ensuring that the rationale for the study is well-grounded in the reviewed literature. Details refer to section 2. Literature review and hypotheses (pages 2-5).

Comment (4.7):

The study design, sampling method, and data collection procedures are adequately described. The authors should provide more details on the specific types of urban parks included in the study. Methodology (Page 4, Section 2.2): Provide more details on the types of urban parks included.

We have added detailed descriptions of the specific types of urban parks included in the study in Section 2.4 “Different Qualities of Urban Parks” (pages 3-4). This section now provides information on park size, location, and features to give a clearer context for the study's findings. We appreciate your valuable input.

Comment (4.8):

The statistical methods used for data analysis are appropriate, but the justification for certain techniques should be clarified. Otherwise, this matter should be added as a limitation of this study. Results (Page 6, Table 2): Explain the rationale for the statistical techniques used in the analysis.

Thank you for your observation. We have revised Section 4.1 “Measurement Model” (Page 7) to provide a detailed explanation of the rationale for the statistical techniques used, including the significance of the values in Table 2. Additionally, Section 3.3 “Analysis and Techniques” (Page 7) now clearly outlines the methodologies employed, such as the PLS algorithm, Multi-group Analysis (MGA) in PLS 3.0, Chi-square test, and independent sample t-test in SPSS. These revisions ensure that our choice of statistical methods is well-justified and transparent.

Comment (4.9):

The results are presented clearly, with appropriate use of tables and figures.

Thank you for your positive feedback on the presentation of the results.

Comment (4.10):

The authors should provide a more detailed interpretation of the findings, especially concerning the influence of marital status on the relationship between urban parks and health.

Thank you for your suggestion. We have expanded Section 5.1 "Key Findings" (Page 11) to provide a more detailed interpretation of the influence of marital status on the relationship between urban parks and health. The revised discussion now includes:

Consistent with Dasgupta et al. (2022) and Lomas et al. (2023), our study reveals that married individuals often have longer park visits due to family-oriented activities, resulting in higher perceived landscape quality, increased physical activity, and improved self-rated health. However, these visits can sometimes be driven more by family obligations than personal enjoyment, leading to a paradox where the frequency of visits does not always translate to better health outcomes. In contrast, single individuals, who visit parks for personal reasons like exercise and socializing, report greater health benefits from their park activities (An et al., 2022). For further details please refer to lines 349-381.

Comment (4.11):

On page 11, line 335, I can see that the discussion was written as Conclusions. I prefer to change this title to "Discussion" as there is another title on Page 13, Line 440, named Conclusion. After this minor modification, the discussion effectively summarizes the main findings and their implications. Linking the current results to prior studies is essential. Here, I recommend reviewing these similar challenges in other contexts. DOI: 10.3390/su14031699 that addresses the workers' stratification. DOI: 10.3390/su15139883 discusses the requirements of the working environment.

Thank you for your careful review and valuable suggestions. We have renamed section 5 to “Discussion” to avoid confusion with the “Conclusion” section on page 12, line 433.

We have also incorporated your recommendations to link our results to prior studies. We reviewed the suggested articles (DOI: 10.3390/su14031699 and DOI: 10.3390/su15139883) and integrated relevant findings. For instance, in Section 2.1 “Urban Parks and Young Office Workers” (page 2), we now mention: “Previous research aimed at enhancing office workers' self-rated health has primarily focused on the work environment itself (van Esch et al., 2019) and explored how to create decent work for all through environmental design and management (Elshater et al., 2022; Pang et al., 2023).”

In Section 6 “Conclusion” (page 13), we connect these insights with our findings: “It suggests that effective occupational health interventions should not only focus on traditional work environments (Lei et al., 2024) and the creation of decent workspaces (Elshater et al., 2022; Pang et al., 2023) but also incorporate the positive impact of urban parks on office workers. This introduces a fresh perspective for developing physical health interventions for occupational groups, as outlined in the Healthy China 2030 strategy (CPC Central Committee & State Council, 2016).”

Additionally, we have expanded the limitations in Section 5.2 "Strengths, Limitations, and Future Directions" (Paragraph 2) to reflect on the link between public space and office workers’ job satisfaction: “Moreover, while this study validated the relationships among the variables, the specific physical elements of urban parks and their influence on office workers’ job satisfaction and overall well-being remain underexplored. Future research should investigate whether urban park environments effectively enhance office workers' satisfaction with their working city and support improvements in outdoor working conditions.”

We hope these changes address your concerns and enhance the manuscript.

Comment (4.12):

The Conclusion briefly reiterates the critical points of the study. The authors have addressed the study's limitations, but it should be more comprehensive alongside the suggested directions for future research. Discussion (Page 8, Paragraph 2): Discuss the study's limitations in more detail.

Thank you for your feedback. We have revised the Discussion section to provide a more detailed analysis of the study's limitations. Details refer to section 5.2 Strengths, limitations, and future directions, page 12.

Comment (4.13):

It would be beneficial to highlight the practical implications of the findings for urban planners and policymakers.

Thank you for your suggestion. We have revised the manuscript to highlight the practical implications of our findings for urban planners and policymakers. For example, in section 5.1 Key findings, we now add the following statement to address this issue.

“Notably, landscape quality has a greater impact on PA than mere leisure time spent in parks. This suggests that improvements in the attractiveness and unique value of urban parks are more likely to lead to enhanced PA and better health outcomes than simply increasing the time spent in these spaces. Consequently, urban planners and policymakers should prioritize enhancing park quality to effectively promote better health among users.” (refer to page 11)

“This suggests that merely increasing the time spent in parks is insufficient for improving self-rated health; instead, targeted efforts to cultivate emotional connections to these spaces are crucial for achieving meaningful health benefits.” (refer to page 11)

In section 6. Conclusion (page 13), we also added statements to improve our study’s implications. As the following sentence shows:

“For married workers, the negative relationship between leisure time in parks and self-rated health suggests a need for spaces that promote personal engagement beyond family-oriented areas. Conversely, parks designed to support individual activities like exercise and socializing can better serve single workers.”

We believe these additions will provide valuable insights for stakeholders involved in urban development and public health.

Comment (4.14):

The references are generally up-to-date and relevant. It is recommended that all references be formatted according to the journal's guidelines.

Thank you for your recommendation. We have reviewed and reformatted all references to ensure they align with the journal's guidelines.

 

 

We thank the reviewers for these valuable comments. We have tried our best to address all the issues raised and we hope that the reviewers will find the revised version acceptable. 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Having carefully reviewed and evaluated manuscript, the reviewer condidered that the authors have modified the manuscript according to reviewer's suggesstions.