Optimizing Urban Children’s Outdoor Play Spaces: Affordances, Supervision, and Design Dynamics

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Title: Optimizing Urban Children's Outdoor Play Spaces: Affordances, Supervision, and Design Dynamics

The paper attempts to study the relationship between environmental affordance and children’s play experience, especially in tightly built urban areas in Beijing. This paper addresses the positive aspects of environmental affordance yet does not emphasize the research question sufficiently.

The topic has been discussed in several forums, from different angles, but can still be considered as an original topic for involving the idea of children play spaces and adult supervision. The paper should further emphasize the importance of children’s play spaces in such tightly built urban spaces.

The paper makes a serious attempt to significantly contribute to the knowledge by bringing in ecological perceptual psychology to examine the placing of urban spaces and their play equipment. However, the analysis of the play space becomes more physical and observational, and the behavioural mapping does not get enough attention in drawing conclusions.

Methodology of the research, as explained, addresses the identified problem. However, the authors do not sufficiently explain the reasons for the methodology or the balance between behavioural mapping and observation. It is important to remember that observations can be personal, and the authors should tell us how possible discrepancies caused by personal observations were avoided.

Conclusions are consistent with the evidence and the argument but fails to make any statements on the scope and limitations of the study.

References are very good, but the authors may look at some articles on urban aesthetics and the theory of convergence.

The paper could be more attractive, if the language is checked and some sentences are made shorter. The diagrams based on behavioural mapping should be more detailed.

Authors should explain what you mean by "sustainable urban development". Discuss the significance of social and economic aspects of urban sustainability.

Very good. Some sentences are too long and can be made shorter so that the idea is better communicated.

Author Response

We greatly appreciate the time and effort you dedicated to reviewing the manuscript and providing your insightful suggestions. After carefully considering all the feedback received, we have implemented the following changes in the paper:

1. We emphasize the importance of children's play space in the introduction, discussion, and conclusion.
2. In the methodology section, we have added a subsection titled "Research Design" that explains the overall methods used in this research, along with strategies to reduce observation bias. Additionally, as a further suggestion, we recommend the incorporation of more mixed-methods to enhance the research design.
3. Figure 1 has been updated to include a compass direction indicator (north) and a scalebar. We have also corrected Figures 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 by adding scalebars. We apologize for the oversight in the original version.
4. Site pictures have been included in Figure 1 to illustrate the space and on-ground facilities.
5. The discussion section has been revised to include more references to previous research conducted in different parts of the world.
6. We have added a section at the end of the discussion to address the limitations of this research and provide suggestions for further studies.
7. The conclusion has been refined to place a stronger focus on the findings derived from this research.

Thank you again for your valuable feedback, which has helped us improve the quality of our paper. Your input is greatly appreciated.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors, first of all, I must congratulate you on the originality of your work and its social value. However, the construction of the article as such needs to be improved considerably.

Title: The doubt remains with the word "Optimizing"; it will be possible to evaluate after clearly establishing the objective.

Summary: It is recommended to follow the traditional structure of a resume since its objective, methodology, or results are unclear.

MeSH: Most are not MeSH and should be reviewed on the website. For example, replacing "physical activities;" with "Exercise."
Introduction: It is not clear why the objective of the research has a reference; this objective must be the same in the summary and must be answered in the conclusions.
The references must be updated since none are updated (from the last five years). In addition, the main actors in the subject, such as the WHO or Societies that publish on the subject, must be included.

Methodology:
Type of study: The study must be identified with its theoretical reference of study and not only with a general book on research.
Ethical aspects: These must be implemented throughout the data collection process.

Results: It is recommended to place the crafting source in all boxes and images.

Discussion: The findings should be discussed with other studies and not just state the authors' opinions on their results again. When presenting research, it is vital to mention its country of origin to achieve an international discussion of the results, not just local ones.
Likewise, the limitations of the study remain pending.

Conclusions:
First, whether the objective set with the research development was achieved must be answered.
Second, a summary of the main findings.
Third, frame its actual contribution to public health.

References: They must be updated with at least 50% of the last five years and reference the main actors in the subject.

Author Response

We greatly appreciate the time and effort you dedicated to reviewing the manuscript and providing your insightful suggestions. We understand that some of the suggestions related to research design may come from the field of public health, whereas our research is conducted in the social science department of the architecture field. This difference in disciplines might lead to variations in paper structure, but we genuinely value the valuable interdisciplinary perspective your feedback brings. After carefully considering all the feedback received, we have incorporated the following changes into the paper:

1. Within the methodology section, we have added a subsection titled "Research Design." Here, we explicitly state that this research is a single case study and explain the overall methods used, including our choice of terminology to describe the various play activities of children in subsequent paragraphs.
2. We have made adjustments to Figure 1, incorporating a compass direction indicator (north) and a scalebar. Additionally, we have rectified Figures 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 by adding scalebars. We sincerely apologize for the oversight in the original version.
3. To provide a better understanding of the research site, we have included site pictures in Figure 1, illustrating the space and facilities on the ground.
4. The discussion section has been revised to include more references to previous research conducted worldwide, thus enhancing the depth of our analysis.
5. At the conclusion of the discussion section, we have added information regarding the limitations of this research and provided suggestions for further studies.
6. The conclusion has been refined to focus more precisely on the findings derived from this research.
7. Regarding the MeSH terms, we appreciate your feedback, and after discussions we have decided to use the terminology commonly employed in the field of architecture research.
8. We have updated our references, with a specific emphasis on citing more recent research, including work by Cohen from the field of public health.

We are immensely grateful for your invaluable insights, especially regarding the importance of considering research from the public health perspective. Our research group has primarily concentrated on the built environment, but your feedback has inspired us to broaden our horizons and learn from the discipline of public health. Thank you once again for your constructive input.

Reviewer 3 Report

Overall its an interesting and necessary study for dense urban areas. 

However, kindly address the below: 

1- In the methodology add a paragraph describing in general terms the steps before you go to each one of them,

2- Figure 1 needs north and scalebar, 

3- Figure 4 needs north and scalebar, 

4- Figure 5/6/7/8 needs a scalebar, 

5- in the conclusions you need to add one more paragraph explaining the outcomes of the results in a more clear way for the reader. 

6- In the methodology, some more information about the selection of the site, perhaps site pictures for the reader to understand the scale of buildings versus playground, 

7- minor English revision.

 minor English revision. 

Author Response

We greatly appreciate the time and effort you dedicated to reviewing the manuscript and providing your insightful suggestions. After carefully considering all the feedback received, we have implemented the following changes in the paper:

1. In the methodology section, we have added a subsection titled "Research Design" to explain the overall methods used in this research, along with an explanation of the terminology used to describe children's various play activities in the following paragraphs.
2. We have made adjustments to Figure 1, including the addition of a compass direction indicator (north) and a scalebar. Additionally, we have also corrected Figures 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 by adding scalebars. We apologize for the oversight in the original version.
3. We have included site pictures in Figure 1 to provide a visual representation of the space and facilities on the ground.
4. The discussion section has been revised to include more references to previous research conducted in various parts of the world.
5. The conclusion has been refined to focus more on the findings from this research.

Thank you again for your valuable feedback, which has helped us improve the quality of our paper. Your input is greatly appreciated.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors, first of all, I must congratulate you for the quick response.
Second, regarding the article, it has been improved. However, only 19% is from the last five years, so updating it by the journal's indexing level requires at least 50%.


Title: OK.
Summary: the problem remains that the objective expressed explicitly in the introduction, "to understand and evaluate," is not the same.

MeSH: OK.

Introduction: Although two current references were added, no main actors, such as WHO or Societies that publish on the subject, have been incorporated. 10% of connections from the last five years are insufficient to support an updated reference framework in a journal of this indexing level.

Methodology:
Study type: OK.
Ethical aspects: OK

Results: it is necessary to have all the authorizations of the people who appear in the photographs.

Discussion: OK.

Conclusions: ok

References: although they have been improved, only 19% are from the last five years, making it necessary to update them by the journal's indexing level, which requires at least 50%.

Author Response

Thank you so much for your valuable suggestions! We have indeed updated most of the references, prioritizing more recent research. However, there are a few definitions of theories or original works that were published in books and haven't been revised yet.

We've made the change to focus on understanding rather than evaluating the affordance of spaces. It's important to note that these are two distinct objectives, each involving its own unique research design. Your input has been greatly appreciated. Many thanks for bringing this to our attention!