Outdoor Recreation Participation in Istanbul, Turkey: An Investigation of Frequency, Length, Travel Time and Activities

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. I think your focus on outdoor recreation participation in megacities is worthwhile, and sheds light on a specific location that has received less scholarly research. 

I have included a track changed PDF document that lists a variety of comments. The major three themes I address in the review are the following: 

English language editing is required for flow, tense, grammar, etc. Additionally, there are a variety of run-on sentences that need to be addressed.  Given that HDI data is used, which calculates demographics at a coarser level than by participant, can you do the following: Compare your age, gender, and occupation percentages to average Very High, High, and Medium HDI demographics or even simply to city wide demographic profile? This will increase you internal validity or provide an additional analytic potential in discussions. For example, are 66% of the residential districts city-wide Very High HDI?  Can you calculate (coarsely) the average travel time to one of the 7 specific sites? In other words, does the average Very High HDI user live <30 minutes from one of the recreation sites identified? 30-60 min? Since you have this HDI Residential District information and the spatial location of each site, I imagine there can be additional context that would inform all of the findings you share.  Less is more. This is a very comprehensive analysis for which the authors should be applauded. However, I think the authors have the opportunity to do additionally pruning to reduce page length and focus on the most important findings. 

I have attached specific line edits in the document below. I look forward to reading subsequent revisions. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

you can see our Response in the attachet file

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

It is recommended that the manuscript be reviewed for corrections, e.g.:

lines 45-46: ...predictors in Instanbul, Turkey, an........megacity. line 89:...recreational site is demanded... lines 89/90:..evidence supports that residential proxy... lines 103-104 : not clear to me Line 312:......we were able to recruit participants... Line 322: ....statistics revealed that... Line 374:.....likelihood ratio... Line 571: ...due not only to the..... Line 569-570: need for correction of punctuation Line 645: ....reasons stemming from...... Line 720:....is 'inquired' the intended word?

Line 276-281: inability to report actual response rate is of concern. Thus, justification of use of low response rate in 'Discussion' section was somewhat out of context.

Authors may wish to restructure the layout of presentation because some statistical results are presented as part of 'Participants' section before 'Survey Instrument' and 'Statistical Analysis' method of paper are discussed.

The researchers made no reference to participants' marital status. Could that have implications for student results?

Tables 2, 4, 5, etc.: use of > and < symbols; e.g. >55 and not 55<

Tables are also too long for reader. They span more than a single page.

There was no 'Conclusion' section

Overall a very useful and relevant study.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

you can see our Response in the attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

General Comments

This study takes the Istanbul, an increasingly urbanized and populated megacity, Turkey to illustrates the relationship between the participation in outdoor recreation and demand factors and focuses on how length of travel time to participate in outdoor recreation, frequency and length of participation in outdoor recreation, and engaged outdoor recreation activities are influenced by each other and socio-demographic characteristics of individuals. This study has a complete structure, proper methods in choosing samples and reasonable analysis and conclusion.

Specific Comments

In section of introduction, this study should explain why discuss outdoor recreation in developing or underdeveloped countries. What is the importance or uniqueness of exploring recreational participation in developing or underdeveloped countries? Line 36-37. The authors mentioned that “In addition, a notable gap in literature related to geographic origins of studies is that the outdoor recreation participation of individuals living in megacities is rarely studied.” Please confirm whether there are really few articles discussing the outdoor recreation participation of individuals living in megacities. As far as I understand, many of the research objects involved in outdoor recreation are major cities. In section of relevant literature. It is suggested that the content of relevant literature can be divided into subheadings. Such as “2.1. outdoor recreation”; “2.2. benefits of outdoor recreation participation” and so on. The title number is incorrect. Introduction and method are labeled as number 1. In section of The Case of Istanbul. This section is very complete, with special mention of outdoor recreation participation in this area. Among the samples, the student population is the highest (47.1%). How does the study explain the representativeness of these 497 samples? In section of survey instrument. What is the meaning of the 4 intervals of travel time? Specifically, due to the area and urbanization of each country, a one-hour travel time may be very short for residents of one country, but very long for residents of another country. It is suggested that the author should explain the four intervals based on the situation in the Istanbul. Does the current classification of travel time represent very long, long, medium and short? Statistical analysis is reasonable and correct. It is recommended to include a statement of sustainability in the manuscript. In this way, it can meet the purpose of the journal. In the conclusion, it is recommended to compare the differences between Istanbul and other cities.

Author Response

Sayın Yorumcu,

Yanıtımızı Ekli dosyada görebilirsiniz

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Good reading and the authors are right about their main argument which is that more knowledge is needed on urban outdoor recreation. It is also interesting to read material from a part of the world, where outdoor recreation participation, and research on it, is less known in spite this being one of the larger recreational/touristic centers in Europe/Asia. Hence, the study is both timely and needed.

However, some both larger and smaller improvements must be made. Comments on these are listed here:

Overall comments

The paper is very long and could use a good clean up, especially in the Result and Discussion sections, the latter wherein there are many repeats (i.e. examples of text parts that had already been said before). Trimming the paper to a couple of pages less would make it more digestible.

The theoretical/literature section (section 1.1) is confusing to read. A lot of knowledge is mentioned but little direction for the reader is found. Where do the authors position themselves in all of it? How will they build on the existing knowledge? And how is the knowledge they present be used in the paper? It is difficult to understand. The reader needs help to understand what is taken out of the literature review into the paper.

The Result section generally is messy and long to read, and offers no summaries at the end of each subsection which would help the reader understand what the important point are.

Language, structure and at times grammar also must be worked through, preferably by a native speaker. There are times where the text, and thus also the meaning, becomes unclear due to this.

There is a problem with the numbering of the headings. For instance, there are two Section 1s, Introduction and Method. Please double check them and change accordingly.

Specific comments

Page 1: the paper starts by saying that outdoor recreation is becoming increasingly more popular and receives more attention, but nothing about why that is. A couple of sentences on this would be good.

Page 1: I do not understand why the emphasis on developed/underdeveloped countries is necessary. As I understand it, it is the urban outdoor recreation that is in focus, not the developed/underdeveloped country context. So either tone it down or, if it is indeed important, then make it a red thread that is followed up throughout the paper.

Page 1: it is stated that there is a literature gab on outdoor recreation in mega cities. Says who? Is that a fact or your own judgment? Reference needed.

Page 2: before section 1, it would be nice to know why Istanbul is an interesting case, just 2-3 lines and then come back to it further below.

Page 2: also before section 1, it would be nice with a paper overview, i.e. how the paper is build and what sections it contains.

Page 2: the definition of outdoor recreation is vague and not very critically reflected on and I do not agree that participation is limited to one day only. Please have a look at the Nordic literature, where the concept is widely more discussed.

Page 2: the section on physiological, psychological and social benefits of participating in outdoor recreation should be linked better to well-being and quality of life. Those aspects are not mentioned.

Page 2: The Travel-cost model kind of comes in suddenly, out of nowhere, and has not been mentioned in the introduction either. Why is the method interesting and why is it used? What is link from it to the paper focus? This is unclear. Please elaborate and be more specific as to how you use it later on.

Page 5: the abbreviation SES should be written out first time it is mentioned in the text. You do this in the paper abstract, but it must be done again in the text itself.

Page 5: it should be explained that the point about HDI is used later in the text, i.e. as part of the sample strategy.

Page 6: Figure 1 is not mentioned or used in the text. If it is used, it has to be referred to in the text.

Page 7-8: Not sure the structure with questions after introducing Istanbul is wise. The questions should come earlier in connection with the focus and aim of the paper.

Page 8: The whole method section says nothing about the choice of method in the study and why this particular method approach was the best choice. Neither does it reflect on the potential of other methods, i.e. regular questionnaire surveys in person or online, and why these were not used. In general, the section is not very critical or informative in terms of why the method was chosen. Should be elaborated on.

Page 8: it is stated that "based on our discussion to determine the response rate, they all agreed that the ratio was about one over three and younger individuals compared to middle-aged or older individuals were more willing to participate in the survey (as reflected in proportion)." - this sounds very uncertain and closer to guessing, and thus a problem.

Page 8: Were only locals interviewed or were travelers and seasonal visitors also interviewed? Please elaborate.

Page 9: it is stated that "unavailability of city-wide or national data base on outdoor recreation participation make it impossible to compare whether our data represent the population of Istanbul dwellers, who participate in outdoor recreation or visit recreational areas" - that is fine, but what does this mean in terms of reliability and generalizability of the results? What can the results say anything about then?

Page 9: isnt the whole section on Table 2 a result rather than method? Consider moving the section to the beginning of the Result section.

Page 9: 'Total' it missing in Table 2, for example after you list number of males and females.

Page 10: a small comment on how the survey was structured is that it is considered good practice to place the demographic related questions in the end of the survey in order for respondents to use the main focus and time on answering the important questions. Nothing you can do anything about now, but good to know for next time.

Page 14: Figure 2 and 3 are good but what do the results actually mean? What can you say from those figure? Same with figures 4-6 on page 16.

Page 21: first section in the Discussion has already been said, please delete.

Page 21: in the next section, the travel-cost method and the reason for why it was used is finally mentioned, but should have been placed much further up in the paper where it is mentioned first time. Please move it up there.

Page 25: there are very few reflections of the larger societal effects and impacts of the results. Why is that? More reflections on this is needed. For instance, what is the usefulness of the results to for instance city planning and every day mobility? Or about health and quality of life issues, which was mentioned in the beginning? The discussion should contain a much more elaborate discussion on these aspects.

Page 25: the section that raises critical thoughts around the used methods is again lacking anything about the use of other supplementary methods. Why were any supplementary methods not used when you had so many people in the field? It could then also have tested the method use itself and maybe even partly solved the low response rate.

Page 25: the comment on response rate being related to where in the world it takes place (i.e. that developed countries have higher response rates, or at least so it can be interpreted) makes no sense. It is not about being a developed country or not, it is about the choice and execution of the method. In this case, the survey approach, particularly the sampling part, seems to be flawed and is the main reason for the low response rate. And that can happen anywhere in the world.

Page 26: it is stated that "It was not our intention to generalize these
findings." -  that is okay, but in that case, this should be mentioned already in the very beginning of the paper. Furthermore, it should be stated that the study is an explorative study rather than one that can be generalized.

Page 26: a proper conclusion is needed. Maybe some of the things for a conclusion can be taken and moved from the discussion. But it must be there in order to understand what you really found and what you contribute with in the research field.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

you can see our Response in the Attached file

with our regards

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for sharing these revisions. Please see a variety of specific comments in the uploaded PDF. 

In general, I think there is still more condensing that can be done here to keep the reader's interest and maintain fidelity to your design/results. Less is more and I suggest considering how you can condense this piece to focus on the key methods, findings, etc.

Additionally, proof reading is needed for sentence structure, word choice, etc. 

And, the reverse logic regarding frequency continues to need theoretical support. I suggest finding support in the psychology literature for the statements made throughout. 

I look forward to seeing a revised version of this submission

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

thank you very much for your time and support for reading hte manuscript. This manuschript were a much more mature study wiht your assessment. 

Some of the answers we give to your comments are show in the PDF file. According to your comments for the  text. we and our colleagues, who did the Englisch editing- did it.

Whit our Besst

MHK and JB

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have carefully and appropriately addressed my comments and the manuscript can be accepted for publication on Sustainability.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

thank you very much for taking the time to review the article

Reviewer 4 Report

Thank you for second reading and good work on editing the text.

Much better read the second time around and glad to see that many of the comments from the first review have been addressed.

Comments:

1) I still feel that that text is quite 'heavy', dense and long to read. I have to take 1-2 breaks when reading it, as I run tired after a while. Please consider cutting down one or two pages more, for the sake of the reader.

2) Language and grammar still need quite some work. I am not a native speaker myself, but there are many small wordings, misspellings and missing words in the text. Please take some time and invite a native speaker to look through it again and fix all of this. It will raise the quality of the text.

3) I am thinking that the paper is sent to the journal Sustainability. However, 'sustainability' is only mentioned one single time in the text (I just did a word search). Is that not a problem? I mean, you do not address the main theme of the journal at all. I would strongly suggest to add something that will connect your focus and findings to the journal theme. Otherwise it would make little sense to publish it here.

4) I have a problem with thinking Turkey as a less developed country and particularly Istanbul as a mega city in a less developed country. Is it really so? On what grounds then? Which standard or criteria on a less developed country are you building this on? Spontaneously, I would say that Istanbul is a developed country city, while spots around Turkey may have less developed country status. If this is an important point for your argument that Istanbul is a less develop country city, then you may want to add such a discussion where you clarify what makes Istanbul a less developed mega city, and not a developed mega city.

5) I still think it is a bit weird that the questions come after the theory section. I always have them before. Not sure if its just a matter of style, but please check with the journal if they prefer a certain paper order or structure.

6) Consider placing section '1.3 The case of Istanbul' as part of Section 2, as the first part there. Technically, I think that the area introduction belongs in the method section.

7) Among your interviewed groups, you mention that they all have quite high levels of HDI. Again, does this really qualify Istanbul as a less developed country mega city?

8) There are still a few repeats in the Discussion and Conclusion sections. Maybe not to the word, but with very similar meaning. Please skim through and filter a couple of more times again.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

thank you very much for your time and support for reading the manuscript. This manuschript were a much more mature study with your assessment.

Some of the answers we give to your comments are show in Word file. According to your comments for the text, we and our colleagues, who did the English editing, did it

Whit our bess

Author Response File: Author Response.docx