Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors presented their findings from the survey of user perceptions of a green roof at a university.
A photo or two of the roof may be welcome to give more information. What was the temperature or weather like during the survey period? Why did you conduct the survey on only one roof? Are the results presentable?
I did not understand how the authors handled the data. In the tables, what do the 'M, SD, F, CI, p, t' mean? What do these parameters present? Maybe it is obvious for people who are in the field, but it is not for everybody. I suggest authors to explain their method or references.
Lines 262-264, the authors say that the difference of M=0.12, it is not statistically significant, but between lines 274 and 275, M=0.1 is statistically significant. Between lines 278 and 280, M=0.21 is statistically significant. What is the rule? Why?
Lines 331 and 338, two references (authors, year), in the reference list is marked as Paper removed for anomysation of review process. In this case, can't the authors find other references to replace them?
For the conclusion, the authors did not give any perspectives for their future study in order to give more convincing results, or how to make users aware of their environmental and social notions.
Author Response
|
Reviewer 1:
|
|
|
The authors presented their findings from the survey of user perceptions of a green roof at a university.
|
Thank you to the reviewer for their constructive comments.
|
|
A photo or two of the roof may be welcome to give more information. What was the temperature or weather like during the survey period? Why did you conduct the survey on only one roof? Are the results presentable?
|
A photo of the green roof has been included in the Method section (Figure 1) and context relating to recruitment and Covid were also provided.
The aim of this survey was to examine users’ perceptions of a green roof at a university. This was the only green roof which exists at a university in Australia.
|
|
I did not understand how the authors handled the data. In the tables, what do the 'M, SD, F, CI, p, t' mean? What do these parameters present? Maybe it is obvious for people who are in the field, but it is not for everybody. I suggest authors to explain their method or references.
|
Thank you for the suggestion. We have now clarified the meaning for M, SD by including full names for the concepts in the tables.
We have also included a reference (Section 3.4) for both analyses conducted, outlining the steps taken and exactly what each parameter means. These are well-recognised terms (F, CI, p) used in statistical analysis and reporting
|
|
Lines 262-264, the authors say that the difference of M=0.12, it is not statistically significant, but between lines 274 and 275, M=0.1 is statistically significant. Between lines 278 and 280, M=0.21 is statistically significant. What is the rule? Why?
|
Independent samples t-tests compare the means of two groups in order to determine whether their scores significantly differ from each other. The tests do not just take into account the size difference of the means (e.g. M=0.12 vs. M=0.10), but also other characteristics of the groups, such as their standard deviation and sample size. Hence, the difference between the means of two different calculations can be similar but be of varying significance, if their standard deviation differs (that is, there is more variety between the groups). We have included more in-depth description around the analyses in texts and also provided references that could be followed up with to understand exactly how the analyses work and are conducted.
|
|
Lines 331 and 338, two references (authors, year), in the reference list is marked as Paper removed for anomysation of review process. In this case, can't the authors find other references to replace them?
|
It is difficult to use a reference other than our previous article in the context in which it is used here, because we are referring to facts relating to the broader study which were not actually examined in the present article, but which are helpful to know for context.
|
|
For the conclusion, the authors did not give any perspectives for their future study in order to give more convincing results, or how to make users aware of their environmental and social notions.
|
We have included a final paragraph outlining how future research could help address some of the limitation of this study.
|
|
Reviewer 2 Report
Abstract: a brief overview of the methodology is required.
Introduction
· Ok
Literature
· Ok
Methodology
· The sampling should be clarified. The authors stated: ‘Participants were recruited through an email to staff and students in the buildings immediately surrounding the green roof (N = 61) and through active surveying of people currently occupying the space (N = 67)’. This numbers relate to the buildings/space surrounding the green roof. the relationship between the 61 and 67 is unclear. There is also no indication of how the authors arrived at 128 participants (see page 5, line 208). Again, the authors are silent on how the participants were sampled (sampling techniques).
Discussion
· OK.
· Note that the mean scores obtained for all the variables is towards the mid (considering that a five-point scale was used), suggesting that respondents do not really agree that green roof have positive social and environmental benefits. This is an interesting finding that should be discussed.
· the implication of the findings is not well-discussed.
Conclusion
· Ok. However, there is need to clearly state the limitation of the study.
Author Response
|
Reviewer 2:
|
Thank you to the reviewer for their consideration of the manuscript and their detailed feedback.
|
|
Abstract: a brief overview of the methodology is required.
|
A sentence has been included in the abstract providing an overview of the methodology.
|
|
Introduction: Ok
|
|
|
Literature: Ok
|
|
|
Methodology: The sampling should be clarified. The authors stated: ‘Participants were recruited through an email to staff and students in the buildings immediately surrounding the green roof (N = 61) and through active surveying of people currently occupying the space (N = 67)’. This numbers relate to the buildings/space surrounding the green roof. the relationship between the 61 and 67 is unclear. There is also no indication of how the authors arrived at 128 participants (see page 5, line 208). Again, the authors are silent on how the participants were sampled (sampling techniques).
|
The sampling technique has now been mentioned.
The sentence has been amended for clarity, as it was a total of 128 consisting of 61 recruited via email and 67 through in-person engagement.
|
|
Discussion: Ok
|
|
|
Note that the mean scores obtained for all the variables is towards the mid (considering that a five-point scale was used), suggesting that respondents do not really agree that green roof have positive social and environmental benefits. This is an interesting finding that should be discussed.
|
Thank you for this note.
It is a well-recognised limitation of a Likert scale. Respondents use the midpoint for a variety of reasons. This has now been noted in the ‘limitations’ section of the paper.
|
|
Conclusion: Ok. However, there is need to clearly state the limitation of the study.
|
A final paragraph has been provided including a discussion of the potential limitations of this study and how future research could address them.
|
|
Reviewer 3 Report
In this manuscript the Authors addressed how students, staff, and the general public perceived a green roof -Alumni Green- at University of Technology Sydney, Australia. The Authors aimed at answering two research questions inspired by the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. The manuscript is quite easy to read and well-structured. The literature review provides a sound background. The manuscript shows pitfalls that the Authors are invited to face. Please see the detailed report below. In my opinion, the manuscript is not ready for publication (moderate revision).
Detailed report
Major issues
I would like to suggest the Authors to provide the reader with a definition of green infrastructure and green roof. Is the meaning of both terms the same in other international contexts (Europe, America, Africa, …)?
Section 3 lacks adequate references: it refers only to Issa et al. (2010). In other words, I would suggest the Authors add more references that support the methodological approach. Is the methodological approach inspired by previous studies?
Section 3.1: this section lacks images clarifying the geographical context and photos of the green roof.
Section 3.2: what is Qualtrics? Please describe it.
Section 3.4 needs adequate detailed description of the analysis so that other scholars can apply the same methodological approach (references, equations, ecc.).
Sections 6 might be more interesting to international scholars if it also reported on the limitations of the study. Please consider describing the main limitations of the study and suggesting future research to overcome such limitations.
Minor issues
Lines 131, 331, 338: please fix "Authors, Year".
Line 208: please consider describing SPSS.
Author Response
|
|
|
|
Reviewer 3:
|
|
|
In this manuscript the Authors addressed how students, staff, and the general public perceived a green roof -Alumni Green- at University of Technology Sydney, Australia. The Authors aimed at answering two research questions inspired by the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. The manuscript is quite easy to read and well-structured. The literature review provides a sound background. The manuscript shows pitfalls that the Authors are invited to face. Please see the detailed report below. In my opinion, the manuscript is not ready for publication (moderate revision).
|
Thank you to the reviewer for their assessment of the paper and their constructive feedback.
|
|
I would like to suggest the Authors to provide the reader with a definition of green infrastructure and green roof. Is the meaning of both terms the same in other international contexts (Europe, America, Africa, …)?
|
We have included a definition of green infrastructure in the introduction, including with example forms of green infrastructure. The meanings are generally similar across contexts.
|
|
Section 3 lacks adequate references: it refers only to Issa et al. (2010). In other words, I would suggest the Authors add more references that support the methodological approach. Is the methodological approach inspired by previous studies?
|
We have included more references in Section 3, particularly in the 3.3 Measures, and added more in-depth discussion/detail of the overall methodological approach.
|
|
Section 3.1: this section lacks images clarifying the geographical context and photos of the green roof.
|
Figure 1 (a photo of the green roof) has been inserted in Section 3.1, and contextual details about the roof (such as temperature, Covid, etc.) have been provided in Section 3.2 to indicate usage at the time of recruitment might have been lower than at other times throughout the year.
|
|
Section 3.2: what is Qualtrics? Please describe it.
|
A description of Qualtrics has been inserted.
|
|
Section 3.4 needs adequate detailed description of the analysis so that other scholars can apply the same methodological approach (references, equations, ecc.).
|
A more in-depth description of the data analysis has been provided in Section 3.4, including the addition of references which can be followed to understand how to replicate the data analysis approach.
|
|
Sections 6 might be more interesting to international scholars if it also reported on the limitations of the study. Please consider describing the main limitations of the study and suggesting future research to overcome such limitations.
|
A final paragraph has been included discussing the limitations of the study and highlighting how future research could address these gaps.
|
|
Minor Issues:
|
|
|
Lines 131, 331, 338: please fix "Authors, Year".
|
The non-anonymised reference has been inserted.
|
|
Line 208: please consider describing SPSS
|
A description of SPSS has been inserted in Section 3.4
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The Authors addressed the concerns of this reviewer. In my opinion, the manuscript could be considered for publication.
, Sara Wilkinson 4