Citizen Sensing within Urban Greenspaces: Exploring Human Wellbeing Interactions in Deprived Communities of Glasgow

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

It is necessary to describe the claims made in this manuscript in more detail. The structure of the manuscript is so tedious that the manuscript needs to be written in a compact form in order to be published in the journal.

In the introduction, it is necessary to clearly describe the claims of this manuscript, the difference from previous studies, and the contributions of this study.

All references must be cited at least once in the text.

The manuscript contains parts that are difficult to understand, such as p. 40 on page 2 and an abbreviation such as MA without a complete explanation of its full name on page 2. It is necessary to improve the readability of the paper as a whole.

Overall, I think it is necessary to concisely organize the composition of the manuscript.

There are parts where singular and plural do not match in English sentences. It is necessary to be corrected for these.

Author Response

Pls see attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The subject of the paper is interesting. It is aligned with the search for ways to involve citizens in urban planning and management.

The presentation of the state of the art and literature review is well thought out and there is a lot of important work there. In terms of the purpose of this research, it is to broaden the understanding of the relationship of the Paisley community with its green spaces and natural areas. Using a participatory approach, they collect data on interacting wellbeing benefits such as physical health and social connectedness, for example. The methodology followed (VGI) is adequate, although the results do not seem very revealing. The same goes for the conclusions.

The quality of the images they present as a summary of their findings could also be improved. They obtain maps of undefined densities (heatmaps) calculated through the markers. But they are maps that do not present the data in a very descriptive way. They are somewhat confusing.

However, I find the subject interesting and although the article does not present very novel conclusions, it may be useful to continue advancing in similar studies.

In conclusion, I suggest accepting the article but I would also ask to improve it in some respects:

1. Change The map in Figure 1: “This is a diagram used to illustrate the spatial rela-tionship between the urban areas and the less urban areas, no density metrics were applied” Why no metrics are applied? I would appreciate them. Quantifying density helps to understand and contextualise the study. And, why is the map in black and white? It confuses densities of different intensity with green areas for example. the map can be improved and the study will be better understood

2. Review the typography of all maps. There is a problem and they look bad

3. Try designing the  maps in 2D without perspective, they will be better understood. Consider removig their underneath satellite image and using a base map; they might be better understood

4. Trying to quantify densities, the high-low representation of the heatmap does not make a concrete message.

5. In page 13. Reconsider the sentence: ““In summary, overall and generally, the respondents had the following profile: Males” I don't think you can say that (52 vs 47% in such low values it makes almost 50-50).

 

Author Response

Pls see attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Ample data are provided. The map-based questionnaire seems to be a valuable tool to capture the interactions people have with the UGS. Please correct the issues raised below before I can recommend this manuscript for publication.

 

2.1. Study area

Here and elsewhere, the sentences are sometimes sporadic. For example, “See Figure 1.”

 

3.1.

Please check the numbers against those in Table 2.

 

3.2.

What % is the median SIMD?

 

3.3.

Please check the numbers against those in Table 5. For example, 152 should be physical HWB benefit.

 

3.4.

“No further socio-economic results were explored.”---Why not? Any relationship between the HWB benefits and household income or education level?

 

3.5.

For Figures 6, 7, and 8, you should describe the results besides the heat maps. Please describe the major findings.

 

4. Discussion

“Literature has suggested…components.”---Please cite the literature.

 

“n that study”---a typo.

 

“The geo-data analysis…”--- I would be interested to know the characteristics of the 18 UGS such as facilities, land cover types, use areas, etc.

 

 

Table 4 is same as Table 2. Where is Table 4?

 

Table 6

It is better to show in percentages not actual numbers.

 

Figures 1 and 2

The inserted texts appear squashed.

 

2.1. Study area

Here and elsewhere, the sentences are sometimes sporadic. For example, “See Figure 1.”

Author Response

Pls see attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

It was revised well based on the reviewer's report.