Public Perceptions of the Socioeconomic Importance of Urban Green Areas in the Era of COVID-19: A Case Study of a Nationwide Survey in Greece

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors, thank you for your contribution. I thought the paper was very interesting to read.

"The socioeconomic importance of Urban Green Areas in the era of Covid-19; A case study of a nationwide survey in Greece" is a study concerning Greek citizens' perception of the role of urban green areas in the era of the Covid-19 pandemic. The research was conducted by means of a nationwide survey, which allowed the authors to obtain some interesting results.

The objectives of the study were clearly stated in the introduction and the paper, on the whole, is supported by a coherent and reliable argumentation. The literature review, however, appears to be fragmented and not well structured. In fact, many of the scientific contributions forming the background of the research have been reported within the 'Discussion' section. This creates some confusion for the reader. Therefore, it is advisable to consider a redistribution of the information on the state of the art, placing it before the section on methodology (perhaps including these references in the discussion section where necessary).

The methodology seems rigorous and well structured, but I think it might be useful for readers to have a summary of the steps followed in the research, possibly through a bulleted list, in order to better identify the steps of the work and link them to the sections and paragraphs (and sub-sections) of the paper. This would improve the reading of the paper and allow any specific points of interest to be identified more quickly.

The entire paper is accompanied by a series of graphs and images that appropriately complement the text and help guide the reading and usefully explain the results obtained from the survey. 

Concerning the English, the text needs to be checked again to eliminate minor grammatical errors, such as the use of "its" instead of "their" in the 3rd line of the first paragraph and the use of "citizens" instead of "citizens' " in the 4th bullet point of the first paragraph. Furthermore, the authors are invited to check also the uses of "a"/"an" and "the" in the text, e.g. in the first line of page 3, "during" should be written and not "a during".

Finally, the authors are invited to quote reference no. 18 more appropriately in the bibliography.

I wish you all the best.

Author Response

Reviewer 1

Comment: Dear authors, thank you for your contribution. I thought the paper was very interesting to read. "The socioeconomic importance of Urban Green Areas in the era of Covid-19; A case study of a nationwide survey in Greece" is a study concerning Greek citizens' perception of the role of urban green areas in the era of the Covid-19 pandemic. The research was conducted by means of a nationwide survey, which allowed the authors to obtain some interesting results.

The objectives of the study were clearly stated in the introduction and the paper, on the whole, is supported by a coherent and reliable argumentation.

 

Response: We thank the Reviewer for the kind and specific comments and useful suggestions. Please see our responses to each comment below and also the changes marked in red in the revised manuscript.

 

 

Comment: The literature review, however, appears to be fragmented and not well structured. In fact, many of the scientific contributions forming the background of the research have been reported within the 'Discussion' section. This creates some confusion for the reader. Therefore, it is advisable to consider a redistribution of the information on the state of the art, placing it before the section on methodology (perhaps including these references in the discussion section where necessary).

 

Response: Part of the discussion section, mainly the one concerning the literature review has been moved to the introduction.

 

 

Comment: The methodology seems rigorous and well structured, but I think it might be useful for readers to have a summary of the steps followed in the research, possibly through a bulleted list, in order to better identify the steps of the work and link them to the sections and paragraphs (and sub-sections) of the paper. This would improve the reading of the paper and allow any specific points of interest to be identified more quickly.

 

Response: Thank you so much for your comment. The methods section has been revised accordingly and more explanation was provided on the steps and structure of questions used.

 

 

Comment: The entire paper is accompanied by a series of graphs and images that appropriately complement the text and help guide the reading and usefully explain the results obtained from the survey. 

Concerning the English, the text needs to be checked again to eliminate minor grammatical errors, such as the use of "its" instead of "their" in the 3rd line of the first paragraph and the use of "citizens" instead of "citizens' " in the 4th bullet point of the first paragraph. Furthermore, the authors are invited to check also the uses of "a"/"an" and "the" in the text, e.g. in the first line of page 3, "during" should be written and not "a during".

 

Response: The text was edited and grammatical errors were corrected.

 

 

Comment: Finally, the authors are invited to quote reference no. 18 more appropriately in the bibliography.

I wish you all the best.

 

Response: The reference was revised as follows:

WHO. WHO manifesto for a healthy recovery from COVID-19: Prescriptions and Actionables for a Healthy and Green Recovery. World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 29. 2020. Available online:  https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/who-manifesto-for-a-healthy-recovery-from-covid-19 (accessed on 31 October 2022).

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

The manuscript addresses a topic of great importance and urgency, which is at the meeting point of several key challenges in the field of current urban policy and planning. The issues discussed are highly context sensitive and empirical research in different cultural contexts is a chance for better understanding general tendencies.

Main weaknesses: The relevance and importance of the topic are rather randomly outlined  and discussed in the text. The topic is not interpreted from the urban planning perspective - the spatial / morphological typology of Greek cities and UGA availability and accessibility there are not presented at all (besides some brief comment about the insufficiency of space for greenery in Greek cities). Specific climate change phenomena in Greece and their effects on the urban structures are not discussed. This missing information could be expected to hamper any further attempt for comparative analysis with other countries and cities.

I understand the effort to cover a broad range of interrelated issues but keeping a clearer focus on the aim of the manuscript and structuring linkages among different subtopics and survey results should be generally recommended. The research aim, perspective and limitations need to be more clearly stated and the discussion - more precisely related to the already published findings about urban challenges stemming from the pandemics but also about public policy responses concerning UGA. Although economic dimensions are explicitly mentioned in the title and in the text of the manuscript, it is not explained in a structured way which of them and how have been addressed.

Detailed comments:

Title: The title covers a broader topic than the one actually addressed by the manuscript, which rather focuses on “perceptions about the importance” than “importance” itself. The “socioeconomic importance” claimed in the title is also too generally described in the text and not analysed in a structured manner.  Public health and quality of life are often mentioned further in the text – it would be important to explain how they are placed in the structure of the regarded socioeconomic aspects.

1_Introduction. The introduction does not provide a sufficiently elaborated review on the state-of-the -art in the field. The literature review  currently presented in the Discussion section should be moved here  in order to highlight the motivation for undertaking the reported study and how it intends to contribute to enriching the already compiled knowledge and understanding.

2_Methods. A more detailed explanation would be expected on the link between the type of information sought for and the structure of the questions. The rationale for choosing the type of questions and the different grading scales (a 5-degree grading scale when asking respondents to evaluate the different ecosytem services-functions provided by the UGAs in their municipality but  a 4-degree grading scale when asking about “Securing public health and natural environment”).

3_Respondents’ profile. It is not clear if the place of origin of the respondents was identified;  it could be expected that city typology might influence the accessibility to UGA but also citizens’ perceptions about UGA importance. Potential limitations of the study should be also discussed here.

4_Results. There are some interesting and clearly presented survey results effectively supporting the claimed citizens’ perceptions about the high importance of UGA in the city, e.g., he high citizens’ awareness about the crucial role of UGA in providing for urban health in times of crisis (fig. 8) and the prioritization of access to UGA over the access to home internet. However, the reporting of survey results needs to be distinguished from the discussion; some speculative interpretations of the results remain unclear and unconvincing.

5_Discussion. The whole text after the first paragraph in this section rather belongs to the introduction where it would be useful to explain the research context and provide a relevant frame of the study; discussion of your own results would be expected here. The recommendation for “a comprehensive study regarding the realisation and maintenance of UGAs of all categories i.e., urban parks or forests should be carried out beforehand” needs to be clearly addressed to the relevant Greek institutions responsible UGA planning and maintenance; this recommendation rather belongs to the conclusion.

6_Conclusion.

UN SDGs are logically mentioned here but why are they missing in the introduction to provide a basis for formulating the research aim and objectives? The recommended development of integrated urban plans  is an established practice in most European cities for many years now (effectively supported by the Covenant of Mayors initiative and networking). It is not clear how the survey results provide the basis for the general  recommendation to “establish action plans to investigate the socioeconomic importance of Urban Green Areas both from an ecosystemic and public health perspective”. This would need another research effort to outline links with currently existing policy documents at the European and national level.

References. The included sources are relevant to the topic, yet only partially covering the broad body of literature dealing with the complex topic addressed. They are most often only generally quoted in the text  with no detailed analysis on how the study results relate to already applied similar research approaches and to accumulated knowledge worldwide.

Figures. There is a mistaken numbering -  Figure 4. Average scores for the assessment of the UGA services based on the evaluation of the participants (n=735), using a 5 degree scale; and Figure 4. Responses on services accepted for an increase in the municipal tax for improving UGAs).

Author Response

Comment: The manuscript addresses a topic of great importance and urgency, which is at the meeting point of several key challenges in the field of current urban policy and planning. The issues discussed are highly context sensitive and empirical research in different cultural contexts is a chance for better understanding general tendencies.

 

Response: We highly acknowledge the Reviewers comments and suggestions for enhancing the quality of our work. Please find below our response for each comment and also all changes marked in red in the revised manuscript.

 

 

Comment: Main weaknesses: The relevance and importance of the topic are rather randomly outlined  and discussed in the text. The topic is not interpreted from the urban planning perspective - the spatial / morphological typology of Greek cities and UGA availability and accessibility there are not presented at all (besides some brief comment about the insufficiency of space for greenery in Greek cities). Specific climate change phenomena in Greece and their effects on the urban structures are not discussed. This missing information could be expected to hamper any further attempt for comparative analysis with other countries and cities.

 

Response: We agree and thank the Reviewer for his comment. To address the issue we added findings from studies conducting in Greece to better describe the climatic conditions and changes in the Greek peninsula. In addition results from other studies conducted in Greece and specifically in Athens, concerning the effects of urban green spaces were incorporated in the Introduction.

More specifically the following text was added in the Introduction and the References list was revised accordingly:

“Concerning the Greek peninsula, the recent rapid warming trends have shown to have an impact on the viability and growth of vegetation either on urban or natural settings [15]. In addition, recent studies have evaluatedthe changes in aridity the last century in Greece and identified that the recent climatic period is characterized by more arid conditions compared to the past, suggesting also reduced water availability for the natural and urban vegetation with significant impacts on the plants growth, that is also supported by other studies for Greece [16-17]. The warming trends and the changes to more arid conditions are even rapidly occuring in the Greek cities [18-24]. Under such climate conditions, the green infrustructure in Greek cities are already copying with climate change and are considered as an regulatory tool to mitigatingurban climate and the Urban Heat Island (UHI) phenomenon  imposing an urging need for sustainable urban planning. However, in Greek cities, the availability of green spaces is generally scarce and especially in densely populated and  built-up areas such as Athens. Specifically for the city of Athens, studies have, [25-26], explored the UHI phenomenon in 25 sites inside the city during the summer period and suggested the division of the city in five geographical zones considering their thermal balance characteristics. Both studies identified that the industrial western and central parts of the city had higher air temperatures compared to the nothern and easter parts, underlining the positive cooling effect of green spaces, that is also addressed in other studies conducted in Athens either in urban parks [27-29], small courtyards [30-31] or single trees [32]. “

 

 

Comment: I understand the effort to cover a broad range of interrelated issues but keeping a clearer focus on the aim of the manuscript and structuring linkages among different subtopics and survey results should be generally recommended. The research aim, perspective and limitations need to be more clearly stated and the discussion - more precisely related to the already published findings about urban challenges stemming from the pandemics but also about public policy responses concerning UGA. Although economic dimensions are explicitly mentioned in the title and in the text of the manuscript, it is not explained in a structured way which of them and how have been addressed.

 

Response: The issue was addressed by moving part of the discussion in the introduction. The remaining part of the discussion focuses on the results and their linkages with existing research

In addition, we underlined the limitations of our study in the Conclusions section. We would kindly like to inform though that we are already considering the conduct of a new study to further investigate those important comments raised.

 

 

Comment: Detailed comments:

Title: The title covers a broader topic than the one actually addressed by the manuscript, which rather focuses on “perceptions about the importance” than “importance” itself. The “socioeconomic importance” claimed in the title is also too generally described in the text and not analysed in a structured manner.  Public health and quality of life are often mentioned further in the text – it would be important to explain how they are placed in the structure of the regarded socioeconomic aspects.

 

Response: The title was revised according to the suggestion from:

“The socioeconomic importance of Urban Green Areas in the era of Covid-19; A case study of nationwide survey in Greece”

to

“Public perceptions of the socioeconomic importance of Urban Green Areas in the era of Covid-19; A case study of a nationwide survey in Greece”

 

 

Comment: 1_Introduction. The introduction does not provide a sufficiently elaborated review on the state-of-the -art in the field. The literature review  currently presented in the Discussion section should be moved here  in order to highlight the motivation for undertaking the reported study and how it intends to contribute to enriching the already compiled knowledge and understanding.

 

Response: Part of the discussion section, mainly this that concerns the literature review has been moved to the introduction.

 

 

Comment: 2_Methods. A more detailed explanation would be expected on the link between the type of information sought for and the structure of the questions. The rationale for choosing the type of questions and the different grading scales (a 5-degree grading scale when asking respondents to evaluate the different ecosytem services-functions provided by the UGAs in their municipality but  a 4-degree grading scale when asking about “Securing public health and natural environment”).

 

Response: Thank you so much for this very relevant comment; Please note that we have restructured the methods section as well as the specific description of the main pillars of the questions used as follows:

 

• Citizens’ considerations and perceptions of Urban Green Areas in relation to the covid-19 pandemic using different scaling options based on each question;
• Citizens appraisal of ecosystem services provided by the UGAs in their municipality by using a grade from 1 to 5. ;
• Citizens’ perceived socioecological benefits linked to the importance of UGAs, ranked in a 4 degree grading scale;  
• Citizens’ willingness to pay for selected ecosystem services through an increase in the municipal tax for improving UGAs;
• Demographic data.

 

In addition, please note that indeed a a 5-degree grading scale was used to appraise the evaluation of different ecosystem services-functions provided by the UGAs in their municipality, and indeed a 4-degree ranking scale was used to rank the importance of UGAs for enhancing socio-ecological benefits, based on 4 given options.

 

Comment: 3_Respondents’ profile. It is not clear if the place of origin of the respondents was identified;  it could be expected that city typology might influence the accessibility to UGA but also citizens’ perceptions about UGA importance. Potential limitations of the study should be also discussed here.

 

Response: We have added some new information concerning the origins of the participants as requested. More specifically we added the following text at the end of Section 3:

“Concerning the participants’ origins, it should be noted that are citizens with permanent residence in Greece. Their distribution in the 13 Greek prefectures indicates that all prefectures are represented. The great majority of the responders (65.3%) were living in the broader area of Athens (Prefecture of Attica), whereas the Prefecture of Central Macedonia (hosting the second larger city of the country i.e. Thessaloniki) aslo holds a high percentage (10.5 %). All other Perfecture percentages are significantly smaller varying from 0.5% for the Prefecture of the Ionian Islands to 5.2% for Crete.”.

 

In addition we added a specific limitation on the conclusion section: “The key limitations of this study are associated with the both the respondents’ profile, mainly male, university graduates and the exact place of residence of participants since the city typology might influence the accessibility to UGA but also citizens’ perceptions about UGA importance, as well as the of a question on the respondents’ age, which in web surveys could be linked to relatively younger respondents”

 

 

Comment: 4_Results. There are some interesting and clearly presented survey results effectively supporting the claimed citizens’ perceptions about the high importance of UGA in the city, e.g., he high citizens’ awareness about the crucial role of UGA in providing for urban health in times of crisis (fig. 8) and the prioritization of access to UGA over the access to home internet. However, the reporting of survey results needs to be distinguished from the discussion; some speculative interpretations of the results remain unclear and unconvincing.

 

Response: Thank you so much for your comment. We have restructured the discussion section as well as enriched the results sections.

 

 

Comment: 5_Discussion. The whole text after the first paragraph in this section rather belongs to the introduction where it would be useful to explain the research context and provide a relevant frame of the study; discussion of your own results would be expected here. The recommendation for “a comprehensive study regarding the realisation and maintenance of UGAs of all categories i.e., urban parks or forests should be carried out beforehand” needs to be clearly addressed to the relevant Greek institutions responsible UGA planning and maintenance; this recommendation rather belongs to the conclusion.

 

Response: Kindly note that both the Introduction and Discussion sections have been revised based on your comments. Part of the discussions section has been moved to the introduction. The remaining part in the discussion aims at linking the results of our survey with the existing literature. Please also note that the relevant text has been moved to the conclusion section according to your suggestion:

“In any case, responsible local and/ or regional authorities as well as experts should take into account all the necessary parameters related to the realisation UGAs i.e, the benefits, the possible spill-over effects, the emergent threats as well as the procured management costs. Therefore, a comprehensive study regarding the realisation and maintenance of UGAs of all categories i.e., urban parks or forests should be carried out beforehand. This should be the starting point before the composition and implementation of any plan regarding to UGAs management.”

 

Comment: 6_Conclusion.

UN SDGs are logically mentioned here but why are they missing in the introduction to provide a basis for formulating the research aim and objectives? The recommended development of integrated urban plans  is an established practice in most European cities for many years now (effectively supported by the Covenant of Mayors initiative and networking). It is not clear how the survey results provide the basis for the general recommendation to “establish action plans to investigate the socioeconomic importance of Urban Green Areas both from an ecosystemic and public health perspective”. This would need another research effort to outline links with currently existing policy documents at the European and national level.

 

Response: Please note that introduction has been edited accordingly to also reflect key updates of the latest decision of UNFCCC’s COP27. In addition, the specific part of the conclusion section has been modified.

 

 

Comment: References. The included sources are relevant to the topic, yet only partially covering the broad body of literature dealing with the complex topic addressed. They are most often only generally quoted in the text  with no detailed analysis on how the study results relate to already applied similar research approaches and to accumulated knowledge worldwide.

 

Response: Thank you so much for this comment. Kindly note that introduction and discussion sections have been modified accordingly.

 

 

Comment: Figures. There is a mistaken numbering -  Figure 4. Average scores for the assessment of the UGA services based on the evaluation of the participants (n=735), using a 5 degree scale; and Figure 4. Responses on services accepted for an increase in the municipal tax for improving UGAs).

 

Response: Issue addressed. All figures were renumbered and the appropriate changes were also corrected in the text.

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The article addresses the important topic namely the role of urban green areas and their ecosystem services. The authors attempted to evaluate UGS influence on public health as well as citizen preferences regarding green spaces, especially in pandemic situation.

The paper may well contribute to above mentioned topic with the data obtained for one of the Mediterranean countries (Greece).

The manuscript is correctly structured and referenced.

I have few suggestions which may help to improve the paper.

To make the methodology more clear I would add an appendix to the ‘Methods’ section containing the full text of the questionnaire used. Also there is no information who is its author – one of the researchers or a sociologist? Is it custom made or is it one of commonly available standard questionnaires modified for the study purpose?

In the “Results’ section there is no information whether there is statistically significant difference between the average scores for UGS services and importance for specific benefits (no p value in figure 4 and 5 as well).

Figures are also incorrectly numbered and addressed in the text – there are 2 figures with no. 4 and no. 5.

Also in the ‘Results’ section – page 8 - there is this incomprehensible fragment

‘It is also very interesting to note that from the 114 (16%) of respondents that answered the survey, their perception about UGAs was less affected, while the great majority (103) considers that UGAs are of maximum importance (...)’ .

I would also advise to re-write ‘Conclusions’ in order to make them sound more like answers to the questions posed in the purpose of the study.

 

The study has some limitations and biases which should be acknowledged.

The respondents were predominantly males and university graduates. There is also no presented data concerning respondents’ age. Unfortunately in web surveys there is usually prevalence of relatively younger respondents.

Author Response

Comment: The article addresses the important topic namely the role of urban green areas and their ecosystem services. The authors attempted to evaluate UGS influence on public health as well as citizen preferences regarding green spaces, especially in pandemic situation.

The paper may well contribute to above mentioned topic with the data obtained for one of the Mediterranean countries (Greece).

The manuscript is correctly structured and referenced.

I have few suggestions which may help to improve the paper.

 

Response: We than the Reviewer for the kind comments and specific suggestions. Please find below our responses to the comments and also see the changes marked in red in the revised manuscript.

 

 

Comment: To make the methodology more clear I would add an appendix to the ‘Methods’ section containing the full text of the questionnaire used. Also there is no information who is its author – one of the researchers or a sociologist? Is it custom made or is it one of commonly available standard questionnaires modified for the study purpose?

 

Response: Please note that the questions of this survey have been added below the main figures of the results section. In addition, please note that the questionnaire has been designed by the authors of this study a mix of social scientists and agronomists, ecologists, meteorologists and foresters.

 

 

Comment: In the “Results’ section there is no information whether there is statistically significant difference between the average scores for UGS services and importance for specific benefits (no p value in figure 4 and 5 as well).

 

Response: We have revised the manuscript according to the Reviewer’s comment. A statistical analysis for the score differences was implemented and the significances scores for the assessment of the UGA services (Figure 4) and importance of specific benefits (Figure 4) were calculated. The findings (t-test) are presented in the above tables:

 

For Figure 4

	Recreation	Play space for children	Climate regulation	Noise and air pollution reduction	Carbon sequestration	Biodiversity	Landscape aesthetic values
Recreation		0.00004	0.00000	0.00000	0.00000	0.11568	0.00000
Play space for children	0.00004		0.00000	0.00002	0.01273	0.01387	0.00000
Climate regulation	0.00000	0.00000		0.19724	0.00267	0.00000	0.69615
Noise and air pollution reduction	0.00000	0.00002	0.19724		0.08545	0.00000	0.08912
Carbon sequestration	0.00000	0.01273	0.00267	0.08545		0.00000	0.00059
Biodiversity	0.11568	0.01387	0.00000	0.00000	0.00000		0.00000
Landscape aesthetic values	0.00000	0.00000	0.69615	0.08912	0.00059	0.00000

 

 

For Figure 5

	Ecological and environmental security (natural hazards etc.)	Production of basic materials (drinking water, food, etc.)	Securing public health and natural environment	Enhancing social relations and networks
Ecological and environmental security (natural hazards etc.)		0.00000	0.00000	0.00000
Production of basic materials (drinking water, food, etc.)	0.00000		0.00000	0.00000
Securing public health and natural environment	0.00000	0.00000		0.00000
Enhancing social relations and networks	0.00000	0.00000	0.00000

 

To address the Reviewers comment, we have revised the original text in our manuscript we added the deviations (sd) for all scores mentioned in the text. In addition, we added statements indicating the statistical differences among the scores. More specifically lines were revised as follows:

“The participants valuated with the highest score (4.36, sd: 1.00) the upgrade of the aesthetic value of the urban landscape and to a similar degree (score 4.35, sd: 1.05) the climate regulation services and the noise and ari pollution reduction (score 4.28, sd: 1.09), that the green infrastructures provide in the city. The score of the landscape aesthetic values present no statistical difference with the scores for the services of climate regulation (p=0.696) and and the noise and air pollution reduction (p=0.089), but are significantly different (p<0.001) for all other services. The recreation activities and the conservation/enhancement of the biodiversity appears to be less important for the participants with scores 3.76 (sd: 1.20) and 3.87 (sd: 1.25) respectively that present no significant difference (p=0.116).”

 

Similarly, in lines we added the following text:

“In all cases, the score differences are statistically different (p<0.001).”

 

 

Comment: Figures are also incorrectly numbered and addressed in the text – there are 2 figures with no. 4 and no. 5.

 

Response: Issue addressed. All figures were renumbered and the appropriate changes were also corrected in the text.

 

 

Comment: Also in the ‘Results’ section – page 8 - there is this incomprehensible fragment

‘It is also very interesting to note that from the 114 (16%) of respondents that answered the survey, their perception about UGAs was less affected, while the great majority (103) considers that UGAs are of maximum importance (...)’ .

 

Response: The fragment is incorrect and changed from

“It is also very interesting to note that from the 114 (16%) of respondents that answered the survey, their perception about UGAs was less affected, while the great majority (103) considers that UGAs are of maximum importance for the improvement of human health.”

to

“Also, 114 responders (16% of the total number of participants) answered that their perception about UGAs was less (grade 1) affected, regarding the improvement of human public health after the quarantine. It is interesting to note that the great majority (103) of this lattest group of citizens also considers that UGAs are of maximum importance for the improvement of human health.”

 

 

Comment: I would also advise to re-write ‘Conclusions’ in order to make them sound more like answers to the questions posed in the purpose of the study.

 

Response: Conclusions section has been revised.

 

 

Comment: The study has some limitations and biases which should be acknowledged.

The respondents were predominantly males and university graduates. There is also no presented data concerning respondents’ age. Unfortunately in web surveys there is usually prevalence of relatively younger respondents.

 

Response: Thank you so much for this suggestion. Please note that key limitations and biases have been added to the conclusion section.

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The paper titled The socioeconomic importance of Urban Green Areas in the era of Covid-19; A case study of a nationwide survey in Greece represents a major contribution to the field of urban green spaces. The authors presented and explained in a good way how important are urban green areas for improving public health, especially during the Pandemic of Covid-19.

Quotations are relevant, which is very important for further research. The research design is appropriate, and the methods are adequately described. The results are presented adequately and comprehensibly.

The conclusion is supported by the results.

It is necessary to correct and clarify some figures. There is no need to put a title above the chart when it is already explained in the title below. For example, in figure 1 - mark only a and b above, so without Gender and educational level. Next, Figure 2: erase above Occupation. And so on with all the figures. It takes up space unnecessarily and should not be repeated twice. Various colors were used for the figures. It should be evened out a bit and only use a few colors.

The article is acceptable for publication in Land after minor revision.

Author Response

Comment: The paper titled The socioeconomic importance of Urban Green Areas in the era of Covid-19; A case study of a nationwide survey in Greece represents a major contribution to the field of urban green spaces. The authors presented and explained in a good way how important are urban green areas for improving public health, especially during the Pandemic of Covid-19.

Quotations are relevant, which is very important for further research. The research design is appropriate, and the methods are adequately described. The results are presented adequately and comprehensibly.

The conclusion is supported by the results.

 

Response: We thank the reviewer for the encouraging review. Please find our response to each comment and the changes marked in red in the revised manuscript.

 

 

Comment: It is necessary to correct and clarify some figures. There is no need to put a title above the chart when it is already explained in the title below. For example, in figure 1 - mark only a and b above, so without Gender and educational level. Next, Figure 2: erase above Occupation. And so on with all the figures. It takes up space unnecessarily and should not be repeated twice. Various colors were used for the figures. It should be evened out a bit and only use a few colors.

 

Response: The suggestion is highly appreciated and will surely enhance the layout of our manuscript. All figures were revised accordingly and a single color pallet was used for all of them. In Figures 8, 9, 10,11,12, 13 and 14 the titles were removed and incorporated in the figures’ legends.

 

 

Comment: The article is acceptable for publication in Land after minor revision.

 

Response: We highly acknowledge the Reviewer’s suggestion for the acceptance of our work.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

How many respondents were in the sample? Were they 731(abstract) or 735(results)?

The conclusion should also include some elements to specify to whom it is concerned and also some paper s limitations.

Author Response

Comment: How many respondents were in the sample? Were they 731(abstract) or 735(results)?

 

Response: The participants were 735. Thank you for noticing. We corrected our text accordingly.

 

 

Comment: The conclusion should also include some elements to specify to whom it is concerned and also some paper s limitations.

 

Response: Conclusion has been edited accordingly.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx