How Can Public Spaces Contribute to Increased Incomes for Urban Residents—A Social Capital Perspective
Dagmara Kociuba
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper examines how residents' use of public space contributes to income growth through social capital. The paper finds that residents' use of public space can be an important way to increase their income. The paper has an important contribution to our understanding of public space. However, several issues may need to be dealt with before acceptance.
1. In the methodology part, the paper has a clear description of how the data is obtained. But I suggest the author add some explanations of the place of residence. What kinds of residences are they? And what types of physical public spaces are in the residence? There are different kinds of public spaces in the vicinity of the residence. Maybe the author can show the readers some map**s or diagrams of the public space and have more descriptions of the spaces.
2. Besides the online survey, can the author have some in-depth interviews with some residents, to explore more reasons or stories behind the data? This is optional but I believe this can help the research have more empirical findings on how social capital contributes to the residents' income. Nowadays there is only data statistical research and lose the chance to have more important findings of what further mediating mechanism can affect residents' income.
3. The N3 research question "in public space activities, you can meet people with higher position than you", how does the author define the "higher position"? This seems confusing and seems hard to quantify。
4. In the result, besides verifying the hypothesis, it would be better to show the specific impact weights of each indicator for the author. Maybe can make a diagram or a table for that.
5. It would be good to have some answers on "there are further mediating mechanisms that affect residents' income beyond those considered in this paper" (p.16).
6. In the discussion part, the author uses many many references, but it would be good to put them into the "introduction" or the "theoretical analysis and research hypotheses" and help construct the theory for the paper.
7. In the discussion the author talks about the "physical space, emotional space, and the value space". But I feel that they look important, and it would be good to put them into the "theoretical analysis and research hypotheses", as a part of important theoretical construction.
Author Response
|
Comments 1: In the methodology part, the paper has a clear description of how the data is obtained. But I suggest the author add some explanations of the place of residence. What kinds of residences are they? And what types of physical public spaces are in the residence? There are different kinds of public spaces in the vicinity of the residence. Maybe the author can show the readers some map**s or diagrams of the public space and have more descriptions of the spaces.
Response 1: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. Based on your suggestion, in the revised manuscript, we have presented the type and accessibility of public space near the respondents' residence in a relevant table, as shown in Table 1 in the revised manuscript. Table 1 Distribution of public space within 1 km of residential neighborhoods
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Comments 2: Besides the online survey, can the author have some in-depth interviews with some residents, to explore more reasons or stories behind the data? This is optional but I believe this can help the research have more empirical findings on how social capital contributes to the residents' income. Nowadays there is only data statistical research and lose the chance to have more important findings of what further mediating mechanism can affect residents' income.
Response 2: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. According to your suggestion, in the revised manuscript, we have added the records of some respondents' answers during the field survey in the section of research hypotheses, so as to further support the research conclusions of this paper. The specific modifications are as follows. In the section about the impact of the use of public space on residents' income, the following records of respondents' answers have been added, which in Lines 181–185. "I go to the side of the nearby square to set up a stall on weekends, mainly to sell some fruits to subsidize my family." "I met a neighbor in the community when I was playing with my kids in the park, and later he introduced me to work in an organization, and the salary is still higher than what I had." In the section about the relationship between public space and social capital, the following records of respondents' answers are added, which in Lines 210–215. "Like inside our neighborhood, the hygiene level is relatively good, because everyone abides by the norms in the neighborhood, and when they see anyone indiscriminately disposing garbage, they basically go to stop him." "I usually like to sing and dance, and I have met many friends with whom to sing and dance together in the park, and we always help each other." In the section about the impact of social capital on residents' income, the following records of respondents' answers have been added, which in Lines 244–251. "I remember when I was small, basically every family would grow rice, at that time everyone was poor, when rice harvesting could not afford to hire machines to harvest, it was all relatives and friends in the village who helped together." "I had stayed in the countryside before, it was only in the past few years that I went to the city to work, and during the New Year I heard a friend of mine say that their factories were well-paid, and that as long as I was down-to-earth and willing to work, he would find a way to help me get into the factories, and I was very thankful to him, ah."
Comments 3: The N3 research question "in public space activities, you can meet people with higher position than you", how does the author define the "higher position"? This seems confusing and seems hard to quantify.
Response 3: Thank you for your valuable advice. According to your suggestion, in the revised manuscript, we have further clarified the expression of "in public space activities can get to know people with higher positions than you" as "In public space activities, you can meet people who may help you to achieve promotion" in Lines 358–360, so as to make this issue more clear and specific.
Comments 4: In the result, besides verifying the hypothesis, it would be better to show the specific impact weights of each indicator for the author. Maybe can make a diagram or a table for that.
Response 4: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. What we need to discuss with you here is that, as the main concern of this paper is that the use of public space has income benefits for residents, it highlights the existence or otherwise of income benefits, and the impact of different factors on income is not within the scope of this paper's concern. This is because, as stated in the introduction, the influence of different factors on income, whether large or small, has actually been fully explored in the existing literature. However, few of these studies have examined the impact of public space on the income effect, so this paper focuses on whether there is an income effect of public space, and therefore, in order to focus more on the issue of "whether there is or not", it does not further explore the issue of the weights of the indicators. At the same time, we believe that in the regression results of this paper, the size of different index coefficients can also reflect the weight impact on the results of this paper to a certain extent, so we have retained the relevant data for your understanding.
Comments 5: It would be good to have some answers on "there are further mediating mechanisms that affect residents' income beyond those considered in this paper" (p.16).
Response 5: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. According to your suggestions, in the revised manuscript, we have added other possible mediating mechanisms between public space and residents' income based on existing relevant studies, and the main additions are as follows,which in Lines 617–625. For example, relevant studies have pointed out that the construction and improvement of residential green spaces, including the improvement of green coverage, green landscape satisfaction, and other indicators, has a positive impact on residents' health [62]. Furthermore, health, which is an important part of human capital, can make individual residents more energetic and capable by investing in their health, thus increasing both their productivity and income [63]. Therefore, such mediating mechanisms, which are not explored in this paper, could be a plausible explanation for the direct effect that exists between public space use and the income of residents.
Comments 6: In the discussion part, the author uses many many references, but it would be good to put them into the "introduction" or the "theoretical analysis and research hypotheses" and help construct the theory for the paper.
Response 6: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. According to your suggestion, we believe that the purpose of citing literature in the discussion section is to elaborate the research conclusions of existing scholars, reflecting the differences between the conclusions of this paper and the existing studies, and thus highlighting the new contributions of this paper's research. The literature in the theoretical analysis and research hypothesis section, on the other hand, is used to construct the relationship between the research variables in this paper, so it is not actually compatible with the literature cited in the discussion section. In fact, there are many articles that adopt a similar structure to this paper for the theoretical elaboration and conclusion dialogues, such as Astell-Burt et al.(2014)[1] 、Samsudin et al.(2022)[2] and Taczanowska et al.(2024)[3] . These articles have adopted the structure of this paper, especially in the discussion section to have a full dialog with the existing studies in order to reflect the innovative points of the article. |
[1] Astell-Burt, T.; Feng, X.; Mavoa, S.; Badland, H. M.; Giles-Corti, B., Do low-income neighborhoods have the least green space? A cross-sectional study of Australia's most populous cities. bmc Public Health 2014, 14.
[2] Samsudin, R.; Yok, T. P.; Chua, V., Social capital formation in high density urban environments: Perceived attributes of neighborhood green space shape social capital more directly than physical ones. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2022, 227: 104527.
[3] Taczanowska K, Tansil D, Wilfer J, et al. The impact of age on people's use and perception of urban green spaces and their effect on personal health and wellbeing during the COVID-19 pandemic—A case study of the metropolitan area of Vienna, Austria[J]. Cities, 2024, 147: 104798.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. Introduction
I suggest preorganizing the content to start with the purpose of the paper and then address the research questions.
2. Theoretical analysis and research hypotheses
2.1. Impact of the use of public space on the income of residents
I suggest addressing the issue of the economic benefits of neighborhoods with public spaces, e.g., the increase in income from sales or rentals and also the overpricing of properties located in the vicinity of well-organized public spaces. On the other hand, the decrease in value in case of low accessibility or poor quality of public spaces.
3. Data, variable selection, and empirical analysis
3.1. Data sources
This sub-section also describes the method of data selection and the problems associated with obtaining reliable data as well as a description of the characteristics of the research sample. Therefore, I suggest adjusting the title to the content of the sub-section.
In the context of the research conducted, I am puzzled why the authors did not collect and analyze data on the size of the settlement units (metro, cities, town) from which the respondents came. Analysis of this variable would have given a holistic overview and demonstrated an important and missing, in my opinion, element, namely the impact of the size of the territorial unit on the vulnerability of residents to building social networks by enhancing interaction and thus building social capital as well as income differentiation of residents using public space in these population-diverse units. Perhaps this should be a direction for further research.
4. Discussion
"Further, this study answers the research questions of where social cap-641 ital originates from and how it can be enhanced on this basis, which provides a new un-642 derstanding for the relationship between social capital and income" I propose to detail this statement and answer the research questions in relation to the research findings.
"Corresponding to these studies, the 662 exploration of the relationship between public space, social capital, and residents' income 663 presented in this paper actually realizes an empirical test of the relationship between 664 physical space, emotional space, and value space. Moreover, it establishes a logical con-665 nection and theoretical explanation of physical space, emotional space, and value space in 666 human society using social capital as the bridge. This further supplements the relevant 667 research on the relationship between these three spaces." The authors made these conclusions by referring to the results of other researchers (lines 647-661). It would be beneficial to demonstrate the specific contribution of this study against the background of studies already conducted. I suggest rewording this paragraph.
5. Conclusions, implications, and limitationslines
lines 680-713 - the issues described here were not the subject of the analyses conducted in this study, and are only the result of the literature review. In my opinion, they should not constitute implications for changing the Chinese government's approach to the creation and management of public spaces.
Author Response
Comments 1: 1. Introduction
I suggest preorganizing the content to start with the purpose of the paper and then address the research questions.
Response 1: Thank you for your suggestion. Based on your suggestion, we have added the following statement in the introduction section of the revised manuscript in Lines 53–60, ho** to fulfill your request for the structure of the introduction.
Further, this paper finds that public space is an important place for the cultivation of social capital, which can promote the formation of residents' relationship networks, interpersonal trust, and reciprocal support. These three dimensions of social capital positively impact the increase of residents' income. Based on the above background analysis, this paper explores how public space can be a new way to promote the growth of residents' income in develo** countries. By analyzing the relationship between public space and social capital, new perspectives and strategies for increasing residents' income can be provided.
Comments 2: 2. Theoretical analysis and research hypotheses
2.1. Impact of the use of public space on the income of residents
I suggest addressing the issue of the economic benefits of neighborhoods with public spaces, e.g., the increase in income from sales or rentals and also the overpricing of properties located in the vicinity of well-organized public spaces. On the other hand, the decrease in value in case of low accessibility or poor quality of public spaces.
Response 2: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. This paper defines public space as a place where residents socialize, relax, recreate, and engage politically, including streets, squares, parks, and sports venues. In this paper, there is no differentiated classification of public space in terms of economic benefits, but rather all types of public space are included. We believe that as long as residents can carry out activities such as socializing, leisure and recreation in the relevant places, they are all the objects of this paper, which does not affect the conclusion of this paper that public space promotes residents' income.
Of course, the question you raised is also very important, different types of public space may indeed lead to differences in residents' income benefits, and this paper mainly focuses on whether the use of public space has income benefits for residents, as to whether the size of the income benefits will be different because of the differences in the types of public space, which will be elaborated in the shortcomings of this paper and the outlook of the research, in Lines 754–760.
Comments 3: 3. Data, variable selection, and empirical analysis
3.1. Data sources
This sub-section also describes the method of data selection and the problems associated with obtaining reliable data as well as a description of the characteristics of the research sample. Therefore, I suggest adjusting the title to the content of the sub-section.
Response 3: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. In the revised manuscript, we have changed the subheading to "Data sources, survey methods, and descriptive statistical analysis" in Line 261.
Comments 4: In the context of the research conducted, I am puzzled why the authors did not collect and analyze data on the size of the settlement units (metro, cities, town) from which the respondents came. Analysis of this variable would have given a holistic overview and demonstrated an important and missing, in my opinion, element, namely the impact of the size of the territorial unit on the vulnerability of residents to building social networks by enhancing interaction and thus building social capital as well as income differentiation of residents using public space in these population-diverse units. Perhaps this should be a direction for further research.
Response 4: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. According to your suggestion, we think that since the main conclusion of this paper is that the use of public space has income benefits for residents, highlighting the existence or otherwise of income benefits, and not exploring in detail the differences in people's living areas and the income differences brought about by the resulting use of public space, which is a shortcoming of this paper, thank you for your suggestion, and we have made appropriate elaboration in the conclusions and shortcomings section of the revised manuscript in Lines 754-760, as follows.
At the same time, because this paper mainly explores whether the use of public space has an income effect on residents, focusing on the presence or absence of an income effect, this paper lacks a detailed analysis of the geographic environment in which the public space is located. Also, different types of public space are not distinguished, and an in-depth exploration of the differences in the two external environments mentioned above and the resulting impact on the extent of residents' income is also missing.
Comments 5: 4. Discussion
"Further, this study answers the research questions of where social cap-641 ital originates from and how it can be enhanced on this basis, which provides a new un-642 derstanding for the relationship between social capital and income" I propose to detail this statement and answer the research questions in relation to the research findings.
Response 5: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. According to your suggestion, we believe that the English expression of this paragraph is unreasonable, and we have reorganized the language logic in the revised manuscript, the specific content is as follows, which in Lines 666–670.
At the same time, based on traditional social capital, this paper further answers the prerequisite questions of where social capital originates from and how social capital can be enhanced. The answers provide a new understanding for people to further think about the relationship between social capital and income.
Comments 6: "Corresponding to these studies, the 662 exploration of the relationship between public space, social capital, and residents' income 663 presented in this paper actually realizes an empirical test of the relationship between 664 physical space, emotional space, and value space. Moreover, it establishes a logical con-665 nection and theoretical explanation of physical space, emotional space, and value space in 666 human society using social capital as the bridge. This further supplements the relevant 667 research on the relationship between these three spaces." The authors made these conclusions by referring to the results of other researchers (lines 647-661). It would be beneficial to demonstrate the specific contribution of this study against the background of studies already conducted. I suggest rewording this paragraph.
Response 6: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. According to your suggestions, we have modified the relevant expressions in the revised manuscript in Lines 690–697 to meet your requirements, as follows:
Analysis of the above studies shows that, on the one hand, these studies present the links between physical space and emotional space, as well as between emotional space and value space; however, they do not systematically explore the interrelationships among these three in a unified framework; on the other hand, the few existing studies that discussed the relationship between physical space and emotional space, as well as between emotional space and value space did not conduct a rigorous empirical test of the relationship among the three.
Comments 7: 5. Conclusions, implications, and limitations
lines 680-713 - the issues described here were not the subject of the analyses conducted in this study, and are only the result of the literature review. In my opinion, they should not constitute implications for changing the Chinese government's approach to the creation and management of public spaces.
Response 7:Thank you for your valuable advice. According to your suggestions, we have revised the relevant content in Lines 720–747, so that the conclusions of this paper can provide more practical suggestions for the Chinese government's planning of urban public space.
In China, for example, as urbanization continues to expand, economic interests often drive urban planners to excessively convert public land into construction land, thus encroaching on and squeezing out a large amount of community public space. Such a development is detrimental to the development of residents' leisure activities and their cultivation of social capital. Therefore, it is particularly important to rationally plan the layout and distribution of public space in Chinese cities based on this reality. This paper proposes the following suggestions: On the one hand, for public spaces closer to where people live, such as neighborhood communities, the comfort of sidewalks and resting chairs can be optimized, and fitness venues and parent-child recreational facilities can be increased. Consequently, a space for residents to communicate with one another is created, and cohesion between neighbors is increased, which achieves mutual benefit and trust. On the other hand, public spaces that are farther away from where people live, such as parks and squares, can be improved by increasing the density of green lawns, improving children's playground facilities and sports equipment, as well as improving the friendliness of park staff. These measures can encourage residents to visit public spaces for social interaction, enhance their well-being, and cultivate a wider range of social capital. At the same time, interventions in public spaces may also have a series of negative impacts. On the one hand, as a result of the beautification of public spaces, the number of public users will continue to increase, which may impose increased pressure on hygiene and cleanliness and increase the management costs of public spaces. On the other hand, this large number of people will lead to an increase in environmental noise, which may induce negative and even stressful feelings among residents, especially female visitors. In addition, public space interventions may also produce problems such as air pollution, ecological damage, and reduced biodiversity. Therefore, urban planners should give full consideration to the emergence of the problems mentioned above when renovating public spaces; they should strengthen the management of public spaces by promoting the rationalization and design of public spaces to better serve urban development.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe research presented in this manuscript is consistent and interesting. However, I believe that there are aspects to improve:
1. There is a high level of text similarity with other articles, 26%, according to the iThenticate report performed by the journal.
2. It is a good idea to review these similarities.
3. It is strange that you are working with survey data, and there is no geographical context of the data to data on one the largest countries of the global, which also has naturally a geographical difference between cities regarding population, public transport, urban design, etc.
4. It is interesting if it is possible to include some geographical context to the introduction and analysis of results.
5. In results you use strong concepts, such as spatial injustice, right to urban public spaces, etc. However, it sounds abstract when results are not associated with geographical locations or cities.
Author Response
Comments 1: The research presented in this manuscript is consistent and interesting. However, I believe that there are aspects to improve:
There is a high level of text similarity with other articles, 26%, according to the iThenticate report performed by the journal. It is a good idea to review these similarities.
Response 1: Thank you for your valuable advice. According to your suggestions, our revisions and opinions on the article are as follows:
- We have rephrased the parts involving repetition in order to reflect the differences in expression. Since there are many repeated expressions and they are scattered, we only marked in red part of the revised manuscript to reduce the repetition, please understand.
- By checking the duplicate report，we found that most of the duplicated parts are some overlaps with the previous articles published by the first author of this paper. These overlaps are overlaps in the expression of statements, that is, overlaps in the logic of expression, but the specific content is actually different, but the checking software still judges these parts as duplicates. Therefore, we believe that there is no academic plagiarism in this article, but only the result of the computer software marking the same author's expressions as duplicates as well, but the actual content is actually different.
Comments 2: It is strange that you are working with survey data, and there is no geographical context of the data to data on one the largest countries of the global, which also has naturally a geographical difference between cities regarding population, public transport, urban design, etc.
Response 2: Thank you for your valuable advice. According to your suggestions, our revisions and opinions on the article are as follows:
- We have added a schematic diagram of the regional distribution of respondents , as shown in Figure 2.
- In the econometric regressions, we control for the province dummy variable to control for the effect of differences across regions on the study results. See the description of the control variables in Lines 394–397 and the data presented in Table 4 for details.
- This paper examines whether the provision of public space for residents to carry out activities such as socializing, leisure, recreation, and political participation generates an income effect, which is influenced by geographic differences in population, public transportation, and planning and design across cities. The research in this paper aims to first verify whether residents' use of public space generates an income effect, rather than discussing the issue of differences in the size of the effect. In subsequent studies, we will take into account geographic differences between cities in terms of population, public transportation, planning and design, etc., based on your suggestions, in order to explore how different variations in external conditions affect the size of the income effect of the use of public space on residents. In this regard, we have already discussed and prospected these issues in the shortcomings of this paper. We have added the corresponding formulation in Lines 754–760, as follows.
At the same time, because this paper mainly explores whether the use of public space has an income effect on residents, focusing on the presence or absence of an income effect, this paper lacks a detailed analysis of the geographic environment in which the public space is located. Also, different types of public space are not distinguished, and an in-depth exploration of the differences in the two external environments mentioned above and the resulting impact on the extent of residents' income is also missing.
Figure 2 Regional distribution of respondents
Comments 3: It is interesting if it is possible to include some geographical context to the introduction and analysis of results.
Response 3: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We believe that in the process of writing this paper, we have also considered the impact of geographical features such as plains and mountains, geographic and geomorphic conditions, etc. However, since this paper studies whether people's socializing, leisure and recreation activities in public space will contribute to the increase of residents' income. The authors of this paper found that no matter what kind of area, mountainous or plain, east or west, people can carry out these activities in public space. Therefore, no matter what the geographical conditions are, they do not have any impact on our exploration of whether there is an income effect in public space. Some of the prior empirical tests in this paper also confirm our observation. Therefore, in order to make the research questions in this paper more focused, we have not explored the issues raised by geographic location differences.
Of course, we also believe that differences in geography are likely to have an impact on the size of the revenue effect of public space, but this does not impede this paper's question of whether public space produces a revenue effect. Rather, the impact of differences in geography on the size of the revenue effect of public space must be predicated on the existence of such a revenue effect.
In summary, to keep the article focused and concise, we did not consider geography in the article, but instead focused on the question of whether public space produces an income effect.
Comments 4: In results you use strong concepts, such as spatial injustice, right to urban public spaces, etc. However, it sounds abstract when results are not associated with geographical locations or cities.
Response 4: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. In response to your question, we have revised our response to the previous reviewer's comments to make it more consistent with the conclusions of this paper in Lines 720–747, as follows.
In China, for example, as urbanization continues to expand, economic interests often drive urban planners to excessively convert public land into construction land, thus encroaching on and squeezing out a large amount of community public space. Such a development is detrimental to the development of residents' leisure activities and their cultivation of social capital. Therefore, it is particularly important to rationally plan the layout and distribution of public space in Chinese cities based on this reality. This paper proposes the following suggestions: On the one hand, for public spaces closer to where people live, such as neighborhood communities, the comfort of sidewalks and resting chairs can be optimized, and fitness venues and parent-child recreational facilities can be increased. Consequently, a space for residents to communicate with one another is created, and cohesion between neighbors is increased, which achieves mutual benefit and trust. On the other hand, public spaces that are farther away from where people live, such as parks and squares, can be improved by increasing the density of green lawns, improving children's playground facilities and sports equipment, as well as improving the friendliness of park staff. These measures can encourage residents to visit public spaces for social interaction, enhance their well-being, and cultivate a wider range of social capital. At the same time, interventions in public spaces may also have a series of negative impacts. On the one hand, as a result of the beautification of public spaces, the number of public users will continue to increase, which may impose increased pressure on hygiene and cleanliness and increase the management costs of public spaces. On the other hand, this large number of people will lead to an increase in environmental noise, which may induce negative and even stressful feelings among residents, especially female visitors. In addition, public space interventions may also produce problems such as air pollution, ecological damage, and reduced biodiversity. Therefore, urban planners should give full consideration to the emergence of the problems mentioned above when renovating public spaces; they should strengthen the management of public spaces by promoting the rationalization and design of public spaces to better serve urban development.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors responded well to my comments and suggestions.
Thanks for the opportunity to reviewing this paper, very interesting.
