Identifying Park Spatial Characteristics That Encourage Moderate-to-Vigorous Physical Activity among Park Visitors

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors, I appreciated reviewing your manuscript. Before it can be further considered for publication, the authors will need to address some major issues in this manuscript. 

Major concerns:

1. Abstract_ all showed common knowledge, and some interesting and quantified results should be concluded.

2. Introduction_ The literature reviews were not updated, and many related studies were not concerned. All research serves some goals. What is the aim of your work?  A comprehensive literature review should be added to clearly reflect: 1) what the relevant research progress is and 2) why your proposal is important. It should be stated in the Introduction. 

3. Methods_ A flow chart to describe the procedure of the experiment is needed. In essence, the methods must be described in detail so that other researchers are able to replicate and build on results. Why does it adopt the binary logistic regression model by taking spatial?

4. Results_ The results are quite chaotic. The readability of the results should be improved. Tables and table names should be corrected to be more correct and legible.

5. Conclusions_ Conclusions were all common knowledge. What is your research contribution?  What is the impact mechanism of the spatial characteristics of urban parks on the type and intensity of physical activity? Some prospective statements should be highlighted.

Minor comments:

1. The current references are too old, and the author needs to update the references to ensure the timeliness of the current research.

It is recommended that the author update the references, such as:

Yang, Yiyang, et al. "Urban greenery cushions the decrease in leisure-time physical activity during the COVID-19 pandemic: A natural experimental study." Urban forestry & urban greening 62 (2021): 127136.

Veitch, Jenny, et al. "What entices older adults to parks? Identification of park features that encourage park visitation, physical activity, and social interaction." Landscape and Urban Planning 217 (2022): 104254.

Zhai, Yujia, et al. "Spatial distribution, activity zone preference, and activity intensity of senior park users in a metropolitan area." Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 79 (2023): 127761.

Bao, Yu, et al. "Urban Parks—A Catalyst for Activities! The Effect of the Perceived Characteristics of the Urban Park Environment on Children’s Physical Activity Levels." Forests 14.2 (2023): 423.

Shen, Jing, et al. "Green Space and Physical Activity in China: A Systematic Review." Sustainability 13.23 (2021): 13368.

Grigoletto, Alessia, et al. "Impact of different types of physical activity in green urban space on adult health and behaviors: A systematic review." European journal of investigation in health, psychology and education 11.1 (2021): 263-275.

2. Both language and organization quality should be improved. There are errors related to word choice, coherence, progression, grammar, punctuation, and paragraphing throughout the manuscript. So it is obvious that proofreading should be conducted by a native English speaker

3. Figures 3 have insufficient resolution. The small icon in the picture cannot be seen clearly.

4. Line 396-406: As part of each limitation, you should attempt to justify why you did not take certain things into account (lack of time, money, data, personnel, etc.) or a reason why the limitation may not be as significant as it seems.  Therefore, you should include this as a partial defense in the limitation section.

I encourage you to revise your work so that it has a chance to be published as I find your proposal interesting.

Best regards.

Author Response

Dear  reviewer，

We sincerely appreciate the valuable comments and suggestions provided by the reviewers on our manuscript. These comments and suggestions have been very helpful for us to update and improve the manuscript.

In the revised manuscript, we have made corresponding modifications and improvements to address the various issues raised by the reviewers and meet their requirements.

We have reorganized the research background and related literature review, and added a standard for classifying physical activity types and the SOPARC table in the appendix to provide a detailed description of the research plan.

To avoid confusion in the conclusion section structure, we have reorganized the expression logic of the conclusions. Firstly, we changed the table format and corresponding descriptive text in the descriptive statistics. In addition, we listed the spatial distribution of MVPA in different age groups as a new analysis subsection and added statistics on the number of people performing MVPA and the average number of people performing MVPA in clustered spaces for each age group to objectively quantify the expression of MVPA spatial distribution visualization. Finally, we explored the spatial characteristics of MVPA through correlation analysis and discussed the encouragement of high-level physical activity, i.e., MVPA, in parks.

We particularly noted the reviewers' exploration of the extension of research conclusions and emphasis on innovative results. In our revisions, we have rewritten the discussion section of the article, highlighting the innovative results of our study and further exploring the extension and practical application value of the research conclusions.

Below is our specific response to the reviewers' comments：

I.  Major concerns:

Point 1: Abstract_ all showed common knowledge, and some interesting and quantified results should be concluded.

Response 1: Update the abstract and summarized three interesting and non-consensus points. firstly, inconsistent with other similar studies, the most observed group in the park is the adults rather than the seniors, and the proportion of the females (51%) is higher; secondly, the distri-bution of MVPA in different groups shows that the seniors have less interaction with other groups, and they have a significant spatial attachment. Thirdly, in functionality large lawn and jogging trails have been proved to be the most effective features to promote the occurrence of MVPA; among the activity, except for the significant correlation between equipped and MVPA, other attributes can be proved to encourage MVPA as well as those in comfort.

Point 2: Introduction_ The literature reviews were not updated, and many related studies were not concerned. All research serves some goals. What is the aim of your work? A comprehensive literature review should be added to clearly reflect: 1) what the relevant research progress is and 2) why your proposal is important. It should be stated in the Introduction.

Response 2: Update the literature review and citations. The first paragraph of the introduction discusses the international attention paid to suboptimal health and the benefits of physical activity. The second paragraph elaborates on the benefits of physical activity in urban green spaces and the promoting effect of green spaces on physical activity. The third and fourth paragraphs present a literature review of relevant research, which mainly includes three aspects: 1. usage patterns and spatial preferences in urban parks; 2. the impact of park space and facilities on physical activity intensity; 3. the relationship between park spatial characteristics and physical activity intensity. The fifth paragraph introduces the advantages of the SOPARC method, and the sixth paragraph outlines the two main research objectives of the paper.

1) Which spaces are preferred by different age groups for MVPA behavior?

2) What are the spatial characteristics of urban parks that encourage MVPA of visitor?

We cited reviewer-recommended articles to add currency to the manuscript, as follows:

• Yang, Yiyang, et al. "Urban greenery cushions the decrease in leisure-time physical activity during the COVID-19 pandemic: A natural experimental study." Urban forestry & urban greening 62 (2021): 127136.
• Veitch, Jenny, et al. "What entices older adults to parks? Identification of park features that encourage park visitation, physical activity, and social interaction." Landscape and Urban Planning 217 (2022): 104254.
• Bao, Yu, et al. "Urban Parks—A Catalyst for Activities! The Effect of the Perceived Characteristics of the Urban Park Environment on Children’s Physical Activity Levels." Forests 14.2 (2023): 423.
• Zhai, Yujia, et al. "Spatial distribution, activity zone preference, and activity intensity of senior park users in a metropolitan area." Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 79 (2023): 127761.
• Shen, Jing, et al. "Green Space and Physical Activity in China: A Systematic Review." Sustainability 13.23 (2021): 13368.

Point 3: Methods_ A flow chart to describe the procedure of the experiment is needed. In essence, the methods must be described in detail so that other researchers are able to replicate and build on results. Why does it adopt the binary logistic regression model by taking spatial?

Response 3: The manuscript has been updated with a detailed description of the methodology to facilitate a clearer understanding of the experiment by readers. Specifically, a flowchart outlining the experimental procedures has been added in Section 2.2.1, while Section 2.2.2 has been expanded to include the rationale for the division of observation areas and explanations for the purpose of observation points. In Section 2.2.3, criteria for the classification of activity intensity have been provided to aid other researchers in replicating the study. Additionally, Section 2.2.4 has been revised to refine the description of spatial features of the park, and Section 2.3 has been supplemented with descriptions of temperature, absolute humidity, and wind speed during the observation process. In Section 2.4, the necessity of using a binary logistics model has been addressed. Given that this study focuses on the spatial requirements of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) and classifies body activity intensity into two categories of "non-MVPA" and "MVPA," the binary logistics model is suitable for observing the probability scores of samples in binary classification problems. The criteria for activity intensity classification and the observation recording table are provided in the article's appendix.

Point 4: Results_ The results are quite chaotic. The readability of the results should be improved. Tables and table names should be corrected to be more correct and legible.

Response 4: In the conclusion section has been expanded into three sub-sections, focusing more specifically on visitors' MVPA activities. These sub-sections are as follows: 1. Descriptive statistics on the park's spatial features, visitor characteristics, and observed activity types; 2. Distribution of park visits by MVPA levels among different age groups; and 3. Correlation between park spatial feature indicators and MVPA activity. In section 3.1, we have optimized the presentation of tables and modified the descriptions of their contents to accurately reflect the data presented. In section 3.2, we have added quantitative values to describe the spatial distribution of MVPA activities among different age groups, facilitating a clearer comparison of park visit patterns across different populations.

Point 5: Conclusions_ Conclusions were all common knowledge. What is your research contribution?  What is the impact mechanism of the spatial characteristics of urban parks on the type and intensity of physical activity? Some prospective statements should be highlighted.

Response 5: In the discussion section added insights into the implications of our findings, stating the contributions of our research from three aspects: 4.1. Based on the discussion of park usage among different age groups, our study can provide guidance for park planners and designers to consider meeting the needs of various age groups in the planning and design phase. 4.2. By summarizing the spatial distribution preferences of MVPA among different age groups, our study reveals regularities that can help adapt to the spatial selection and needs of different population groups in physical activity. 4.3. By understanding and evaluating the park spatial characteristics that affect MVPA, and based on the spatial distribution preferences, we can more accurately determine the spatial requirements for physical activity in parks, providing guidance for promoting MVPA further.

In the conclusion section, we found that the main user group in Tianhe Park was adults rather than seniors, and the proportion of females was higher, which was different from other similar studie, In addition, have highlighted some of the unique findings of the study, including: 1. Paved plaza and walkways are the main carriers of MVPA activities in the park, while large lawns have the highest individual average of MVPA. 2. The modern sports environment in the park is attractive to children, adolescents, and adults, while the seniors have a lower acceptance of this type of space and prefer to exercise in familiar, minimally modified environments, with less cross-group activity. 3. Functional, comfortable, and active spatial features have a significant impact on the occurrence of MVPA. Large lawns and jogging paths are more conducive to MVPA than other spaces, while bright lighting, cool temperatures, and good tree shade reflect the comfort requirements of MVPA activities in the park, and the correlation between equipped and MVPA is not significant.

II. Minor comments:

Point 1：The current references are too old, and the author needs to update the references to ensure the timeliness of the current research.

Response 1: Please see  I. major concerns Response 2 .

Point 2: Both language and organization quality should be improved. There are errors related to word choice, coherence, progression, grammar, punctuation, and paragraphing throughout the manuscript. So it is obvious that proofreading should be conducted by a native English speaker.

Response 2: The manuscript has been re-proofread by a native English speaker after revision.

Point 3: Figures 3 have insufficient resolution. The small icon in the picture cannot be seen clearly.

Response 3: Optimize the display quality of the figures and presented the legends separately below  figure for ease of viewing.

Point 4: Line 396-406: As part of each limitation, you should attempt to justify why you did not take certain things into account (lack of time, money, data, personnel, etc.) or a reason why the limitation may not be as significant as it seems.  Therefore, you should include this as a partial defense in the limitation section.

Response 4: Provide a defense for the limitations of our study. Although our observation was limited to a single park, Tianhe Park is representative of comprehensive parks in Guangzhou. Our findings can provide valuable experience for interventions in urban park environments and physical activity promotion measures in international metropolises like Guangzhou. Despite being a cross-sectional study, the use of Tianhe Park in the post-COVID-19 era represents the resilience of new Chinese urban parks in response to major health events.

 

Once again, we thank the reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions on our manuscript, and thank you for providing us with this opportunity to improve our research.

Best regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article corresponds to the profile of the journal. The research is relevant, the material is presented clearly and reasonably. There are some stylistic errors, but in general the material is presented convincingly.

Author Response

We sincerely thank you for your positive comments on the manuscript.

In the revised manuscript, we have made corresponding modifications and improvements to address the various issues raised by other reviewers and meet their requirements.

We have reorganized the research background and related literature review, and added a standard for classifying physical activity types and the SOPARC table in the appendix to provide a detailed description of the research plan.

To avoid confusion in the conclusion section structure, we have reorganized the expression logic of the conclusions. Firstly, we changed the table format and corresponding descriptive text in the descriptive statistics. In addition, we listed the spatial distribution of MVPA in different age groups as a new analysis subsection and added statistics on the number of people performing MVPA and the average number of people performing MVPA in clustered spaces for each age group to objectively quantify the expression of MVPA spatial distribution visualization. Finally, we explored the spatial characteristics of MVPA through correlation analysis and discussed the encouragement of high-level physical activity, i.e., MVPA, in parks.

We particularly noted the reviewers' exploration of the extension of research conclusions and emphasis on innovative results. In our revisions, we have rewritten the discussion section of the article, highlighting the innovative results of our study and further exploring the extension and practical application value of the research conclusions.

Once again, we thank your approval of our manuscript and for providing us with this opportunity to improve our research.

Regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you for your manuscript and congratulations! The paper is well-written and adds essential evidence for public health. Please see my comments below.

In the Introduction section, discussing other advantages of outdoor physical activity, not only social distancing would be beneficial—for example, more benefits for mental health when exercising in green spaces than in the gym.

In section 2.2.3 and in the further text, I suggest changing the term sedentary physical activity to sedentary behaviour. Also, the types of MVPA should be listed and better specified according to energy expenditure. Was cycling taken into account?

In section 2.3, weather conditions during the observation should be better specified: weather temperature, wind speed, humidity, etc.

Also, in the footnotes of Table 3, the abbreviations used should be explained.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We sincerely appreciate the valuable comments and suggestions provided by the reviewers on our manuscript. These comments and suggestions have been very helpful for us to update and improve the manuscript.

In the revised manuscript, we have made corresponding modifications and improvements to address the various issues raised by the reviewers and meet their requirements.

We have reorganized the research background and related literature review, and added a standard for classifying physical activity types and the SOPARC table in the appendix to provide a detailed description of the research plan.

To avoid confusion in the conclusion section structure, we have reorganized the expression logic of the conclusions. Firstly, we changed the table format and corresponding descriptive text in the descriptive statistics. In addition, we listed the spatial distribution of MVPA in different age groups as a new analysis subsection and added statistics on the number of people performing MVPA and the average number of people performing MVPA in clustered spaces for each age group to objectively quantify the expression of MVPA spatial distribution visualization. Finally, we explored the spatial characteristics of MVPA through correlation analysis and discussed the encouragement of high-level physical activity, i.e., MVPA, in parks.

We particularly noted the reviewers' exploration of the extension of research conclusions and emphasis on innovative results. In our revisions, we have rewritten the discussion section of the article, highlighting the innovative results of our study and further exploring the extension and practical application value of the research conclusions.

Below is our specific response to the reviewers' comments：

Point 1: In the Introduction section, discussing other advantages of outdoor physical activity, not only social distancing would be beneficial—for example, more benefits for mental health when exercising in green spaces than in the gym.

Response 1: Add other benefits of green space exercise in the introduction section. details are as follows:

Numerous studies have shown that physical activity in the natural environment has considerable benefits for mental health in the urban city [1,2]. In the COVID-19 pandemic, Yang et al. [2] confirmed the role of urban greening in alleviating the reduction of people's movement during the epidemic.

[1]Fong, K.C.; Hart, J.E.; James, P. A Review of Epidemiologic Studies on Greenness and Health: Updated Litera-ture Through 2017. Current Environmental Health Reports 2018, 5, 77-87, doi:10.1007/s40572-018-0179-y.

[2]Lawton, E.; Brymer, E.; Clough, P.; Denovan, A. The Relationship between the Physical Activity Environment, Nature Relatedness, Anxiety, and the Psychological Well-being Benefits of Regular Exercisers. Frontiers in Psy-chology 2017, 8, doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01058.

[3]Yang, Y.Y.; Lu, Y.; Yang, L.C.A.; Gou, Z.H.; Liu, Y. Urban greenery cushions the decrease in leisure-time physi-cal activity during the COVID-19 pandemic: A natural experimental study. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 2021, 62, 10, doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127136.

Point 2: In section 2.2.3 and in the further text, I suggest changing the term sedentary physical activity to sedentary behaviour. Also, the types of MVPA should be listed and better specified according to energy expenditure. Was cycling taken into account?

Response 2: Revise 'sedentary physical activity (SPA)' to 'sedentary behavior (SB)', and added a table at the end of the manuscript to explain the types and intensity levels of physical activity, which supplements the description of MVPA in the study. The observation of cycling activity is also described in detail in the appendix in the form of text.

Point 3: In section 2.3, weather conditions during the observation should be better specified: weather temperature, wind speed, humidity, etc.

 

Response 3: Supplement the weather conditions during the observation period: the highest temperature on observation dates was 24±6℃, the lowest temperature was 15.5±4.5℃, the relative humidity was 68±13%, and the wind speed was at level 2.

Point 4: Also, in the footnotes of Table 3, the abbreviations used should be explained.

Response 4: Add explanations for the abbreviations P.A. Level, SB, LPA, and MVPA in the table.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

First, thank you to the authors for their great effort to improve the quality of this manuscript. From my perspective, you have done an excellent job. Therefore, I have relatively minor comments.

a. In sections 3.1 and 3.2 of the research results, the descriptive statistics only express the cross-sectional data. Can they answer the author's research objective? Specifically, which spaces do different age groups prefer for MVPA behavior? Were any significant judgments made about the data, such as ANOVA or t-tests? If there are no significant differences to compare, how can preferences be determined? Descriptive statistics alone are not convincing enough.

b. In lines 705-718, the proposed strategies lack practical significance. For example, the author suggests increasing space to promote physical activity. How much space should be increased? This qualitative analysis is confusing. Improving the lighting system is also proposed. Was the study conducted at night? Why was this suggestion made? How can the lighting system be improved, and how should it be distributed throughout the park?

c. Appendix B. For example, a more standardized writing format would be: 12-17-year-olds. Please consider revising.

Language: the English throughout this manuscript is remarkably better. Many thanks to the authors for their efforts.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely appreciate your acknowledgement of the quality of our revisions.

In this revised draft, we have addressed and improved upon each of the issues you raised. We hope that the revised manuscript will meet your requirements.

Below is our specific response to your comments：

Point 1: In sections 3.1 and 3.2 of the research results, the descriptive statistics only express the cross-sectional data. Can they answer the author's research objective? Specifically, which spaces do different age groups prefer for MVPA behavior? Were any significant judgments made about the data, such as ANOVA or t-tests? If there are no significant differences to compare, how can preferences be determined? Descriptive statistics alone are not convincing enough.

Response 1: We added ANOVA Post Hoc test (LSD) analysis in Section 3.2 to verify the differences in spatial preferences among different age groups, in order to increase the persuasiveness of the conclusions. The specific analysis results are presented in Appendix C.

Point 2: In lines 705-718, the proposed strategies lack practical significance. For example, the author suggests increasing space to promote physical activity. How much space should be increased? This qualitative analysis is confusing. Improving the lighting system is also proposed. Was the study conducted at night? Why was this suggestion made? How can the lighting system be improved, and how should it be distributed throughout the park?

Response 2: We have reorganized and optimized section 4.4, proposing strategies for the planning, design and management of parks from five aspects: design at the early stage, spatial type selection, planting design, security management, and specific visitor groups. These strategies are based on the research findings and discussion, and extend the breadth of their application.

Point 3: Appendix B. For example, a more standardized writing format would be: 12-17-year-olds. Please consider revising.

Response 3: Appendix B has been modified in accordance with the requested writing format.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx