The Social Equity of Urban Parks in High-Density Urban Areas: A Case Study in the Core Area of Beijing
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The topic of the manuscript is current, the structure is comprehensible. The presentation is successful in principle. This also has limitations: The maps are hardly decipherable in this format. Here, another format should be chosen, for example, maps should not be placed next to each other, but on top of each other, this would increase the scale and improve readability.
In my opinion, however, there is a general problem with the article: although it connects to the international discourse, it does not refer to the specific socio-systemic conditions in China, which are not comparable with those in Europe or North America. This would give the article a depth that would also be of interest to an international audience. In its current form, the paper reviews the state of international research and presents the results of a quantitative study that has been similarly conducted elsewhere and hardly warrants an international publication in Sustainability.
Such a contextualization would also draw attention to the article, as it would allow for an interpretation that would go beyond mere data and would be of international relevance.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper investigated the accessibility and quality fairness of 18 urban parks in the core area of Beijing. The research methods were suitable for data analysis and research aims, the research outcomes can reflect the inequality of urban parks from different aspects. Totally, this paper have a good quality and I’ve attached some of the comments, questions and suggestions on this paper as follows:
1. The writing should be improved through the whole manuscript and it would be good to be revised by English local speakers.
2. How do you define low- and high income residential areas in your research?
3. Line 45: Socially disadvantaged groups. Do you mean vulnerable groups? If yes please rephrase the sentence.
5. Why don’t you use ecological system value to assess the quality of urban green space? How do you measure the service level of urban green space park?
6. Line 86: Please rephrase this sentence.
7. Line 88: Generally, it would be easier for readers to add a brief introduction for the following sections. I would recommend to add a paragraph at the end of Introduction.
8. Lines 81-85: You mentioned that previous articles have the limitations of lack the consideration of high density of population and urban land use issues, etc,. Base on your results, what specific suggestions or management policies do you recommend in your research and how did these measures come from your research outcomes?
9. Line 95: You mentioned ‘previous studies’, but you only give one reference for your opinion. Please give at least 2 references when you mentioned ‘studies’. Please keep thin in mind and go through the whole manuscript. Additionally, please rephrase this sentence, it is hard to understand what you are expressing.
10. Line 103: Excluded
11. Line107: This study adds a 1.5km buffer area after removing 5 subdistricts with population density below 15,000 people/km2, please give a brief introduction before and after adding buffer area in terms of population density and urban parks. Furthermore, the Tiananmen Square and Forbidden City have been included in your study area (Fig 1), this is in conflict with your purpose of removing lower population density area! This problem should be well addressed in my opinion.
12. Line 203: Why do you use natural breakpoint method here? Please give a brief explanation.
13. Lines 205-207: Please rephrase this sentence.
14. Line 240: Why do you use the non-parametric test method? At least you should give a reference here.
15. Table 2, how do you measure the score of animal index?
16. In this analysis, authors mainly consider the walk accessibility of urban parks in Beijing, without considering other types of travel modes such as bicycle, public transport and driving. Please discuss this in your manuscript.
17. Line: Multiple big data, in my opinion, big data means large number of data that come from websites or social media platforms, so how many types of big data do you use in the analysis? In addition, Lianjia might only show the prices of houses, but how do you identify the social characteristics of the population?
18. Lines 516-530: These recommendations are of a general nature and readily accessible through existing literatures or online resources. What are the specific suggestions from this study? In addition, These suggestions primarily focus on adding various plants or facilities to urban parks without considering any economic or financial factors. Despite conducting lots of research to explore inequality issues in urban parks, the authors still need to consider how to derive practical recommendations or suggestions from the research results for urban planners or managers to reference.
Must be improved
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper discusses the topic of fair distribution of urban parks in high-density urban areas, considering the importance of green spaces for people's well-being and health. The research question concerns the evaluation of the fairness of the allocation of urban parks in terms of accessibility, area and quality. The topic is not original, as there are several studies on urban parks and social equity in China and in Beijing. However, the topic is relevant to the field of research. The study is interesting and the methodology effective in providing useful data that can be used as a framework for future planning decisions to achieve optimal allocation and rational planning of urban parks. It could also be useful to improve the references and the introduction on the state of the art, also with some reflections on the concept of ecosystem services provided by urban parks as services to the community. It might be important to extend the literature review to other international contexts. The references can be improved to include other similar studies. For example: Shu Feng, Liding Chen, Ranhao Sun, Zhiqiang Feng, Junran Li, Muhammad Sadiq Khan and Yongcai Jing, The Distribution and Accessibility of Urban Parks in Beijing, China: Implications of Social Equity. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 4894; doi:10.3390/ijerph16244894 Li, Z.; Liang, Z.; Feng, L.; Fan, Z. Beyond Accessibility: A multidimensional evaluation of urban park equity in Yangzhou, China. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2022, 11, 429. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi11080429 The use of different methods of analysis is certainly an added value of this research. However, it would be useful to describe more clearly the combined use of different methods, also through the elaboration of a simplified scheme. It may also be important to highlight the original results of this paper in comparison with other research.I suggest to revise the manuscript to clarify some unclear sentences, also in terms of the quality of the English language (for example lines 40).
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The changes now clarify the context and make the text connectable.
Reviewer 2 Report
Accept
