Public Green Space Injustice in High-Density Post-Colonial Areas: A Case Study of the Macau Peninsula, China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Generally, this is one of the best texts I have had the opportunity to review for MDPI.

The introduction presents the research background, not avoiding local and global legal guidelines. Moreover, it indicates elements characteristic of the research field. The chapter is not written correctly. The only comment is perhaps a request for a slightly more decisive outline of the article.

The methodology and materials are presented clearly. The research procedure could be more extensive.

The results are presented clearly and do not raise any doubts.

The recommendations presented in the conclusions should be more refined.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper provides a clear overview of public green space (PGS) justice research in high-density post-colonial areas, specifically focusing on the Macau Peninsula in China. It effectively outlines the significance of PGS in urban social integration, highlights the challenges of PGS shortage in urbanization, and previews the methodology and key findings of the study. The study's focus on PGS injustice in post-colonial contexts, particularly in Macau, adds a novel perspective to the literature on urban green spaces and social equity.

Strengths Identified:

Theoretical Framework: The paper demonstrates a robust theoretical foundation by integrating concepts of spatial justice, social integration, and urbanization effects on PGS.

Research Design: The hybrid analysis approach combines spatial Gini coefficient, spatial share index, and spatial quality assessment to evaluate PGS justice comprehensively.

High-Quality Figures: Including high-quality figures enhances the visual representation of data and analysis, aiding in the clarity and understanding of the research findings.

 Discussion: The discussion section delves into the nuances of PGS injustice, spatial production mechanisms during the colonial period, and recommendations for urban planning, enriching the overall discourse on urban green space equity.

Conclusions: The study's results are well-supported and contribute significantly to understanding PGS inequalities and their implications for urban planning and social integration.

Suggestions for Improvement:

Keyword Alignment: Considering the focus on PGS justice in post-colonial areas, refining the keywords to match the research scope and findings would enhance the article's visibility and relevance.

Focused Topic Representation: The findings should be emphasized more prominently in the article's title and abstract to better reflect the core contribution of addressing PGS inequalities in high-density post-colonial settings.

The reviewed paper excels in its theoretical grounding, research methodology, and contribution to the discourse on PGS justice in urban environments. With minor adjustments to keyword selection and a more focused representation of the research topic in the title and abstract, the article could further enhance its impact and relevance within the academic community interested in urban studies, social justice, and environmental planning.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The topic and the study is very interesting and valuable, especially relations of the availability of PGS in the context of social and environmental justice. The study is quite well presented, however there are some small weaknesses in selected parts of the manuscript which should be revised to increase the value and scientific soundness of presented study.

Main comments and suggestions for Authors:

1. The title is clear. Key words are well selected. The Abstract also clear and the main results has been highlighted.

2. The scope of information included in the section of Introduction is well selected, however the cited literature could be a bit more up-to-date, especially when the Authors treat the aspect of social justice as contemporary and very current, etc.

The aim of the study is generally clear, however the sentences arguing the research are very long (lines: 82-88), what is a bit confusing - it is advisable to improve this description. The research questions are clear.

3. Section 2. Case and Method – the description of Methodological framework (subsection 2.1) is rather brief and requires some more detail to make the used principle/scope more understandable to other scientists and readers.

Presentation of study area (subsection 2.2.) is much developed and reach of information what explains clearly the studied case. Presentation of used methods is generally clear while some relations to literature could be also added.

It a bit difficult to notice the numbers used for three main formulas – they should be clearly named in the text (not only as a number in bracket added in the line of the mathematical formula, etc.).

4. Section 3. Results – is valuable and includes presentation of main results divided into main subsections which are in line with the studied aspects and research questions. Their main interpretation is well developed, also the Authors observed main important relations, etc.

There is some difficulty in relating the text to selected Figures (e.g. Fig. 10,11,12) - in my opinion they should be better placed in the text to directly correlate with the description.

5. The section 5. Discussion – the division of this part of the manuscript follow the three main research questions, and contains important and interesting information related to main results obtained. However, selected parts include more general information which sounds like taken from literature but there are no citations included – generally some more relations to literature/other studies is needed to argue better the innovation of the research conducted by the Authors is needed. This applies to aspects such as relations between Spatial Equity and Spatial Production in the Macau Peninsula, also significant differences in the use of PGS between non-Chinese immigrants groups and Portuguese colonial groups, what should be more accentuated. Also a broader reference to the shortcomings of other studies would confirm the uniqueness of the Authors outcomes better, thus increased the value of presented results.

6. Conclusions – the description presented in this section is quite developed, but at the same time main conclusions are a bit hidden in this form of presentation. It is much more clear to find both main outcomes and conclusions in short Abstract of the paper than in this section. Main conclusions which are in line to the three research questions should be here better formulated and more highlighted.

Summing up, the presented material needs some improvement. My suggestion is to be very clear especially in information presented in both sections: Discussion and Conclusions to increase the scientific soundness of presented study.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf