A Methodology for Quantifying the Spatial Distribution and Social Equity of Urban Green and Blue Spaces

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I found your work compact and consistent. I have no objections to the research methodology and the way the results are presented and discussed.

Because you decided to include water bodies in your definition of the UGS, you might consider including the idea of blue-green infrastructure in the introduction, with the addition of appropriate references.

Regarding the method, I have a small question that you could answer. You mentioned that it was assumed that UGS patches have their entry points distributed every 250m on their perimeter. Yet, the actual location might differ considerably, influencing the calculated distance and hence the results. How was this issue solved?

Finally, you might rethink highlighting your findings in the conclusions section. Maybe this section could also contain the assumptions made for Geneva (local scale) and those more general, that you actually presented in the current version. This remark is not an objection; it is in the nature of polemic considerations.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Regarding the use of the English language, some minor issues, e.g., the repetitions (e.g., the word "finally" in lines 77 and 78) can be fixed by proofreading. Please also consider the possibility of shortening long sentences.

Author Response

 

Reviewer 1 :

Open Review

(x) I would not like to sign my review report
( ) I would like to sign my review report

Quality of English Language

( ) I am not qualified to assess the quality of English in this paper
( ) English very difficult to understand/incomprehensible
( ) Extensive editing of English language required
( ) Moderate editing of English language required
(x) Minor editing of English language required
( ) English language fine. No issues detected

		Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?		(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?		(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?		(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?		(x)	( )	( )	( )
For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?		(x)	( )	( )	( )
Is the article adequately referenced?		( )	(x)	( )	( )
Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?		( )	(x)	( )	( )

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I found your work compact and consistent. I have no objections to the research methodology and the way the results are presented and discussed.

• Because you decided to include water bodies in your definition of the UGS, you might consider including the idea of blue-green infrastructure in the introduction, with the addition of appropriate references.

 

Thank you for this suggestion. We have now modified our terminology to UGBS to include the notion of blue surfaces.

 

• Regarding the method, I have a small question that you could answer. You mentioned that it was assumed that UGS patches have their entry points distributed every 250m on their perimeter. Yet, the actual location might differ considerably, influencing the calculated distance and hence the results. How was this issue solved?

This is a difficult question. Urban parks vary immensely in the number of “entry points”. Some have just one or two (gates openings) while others are essentially open to adjacent streets and neighborhoods. Unfortunately, we were unable to devise a method that yielded the true access points for each park using GIS information. We therefore decided empirically to opt for an intermediate value that yields several points on a typical park perimeter.

• Finally, you might rethink highlighting your findings in the conclusions section. Maybe this section could also contain the assumptions made for Geneva (local scale) and those more general, that you actually presented in the current version. This remark is not an objection; it is in the nature of polemic considerations.

Thank you. We have now included some additional sentences in the Conclusions that hopefully summarise the key points we wish to provide the reader.

• Regarding the use of the English language, some minor issues, e.g., the repetitions (e.g., the word "finally" in lines 77 and 78) can be fixed by proofreading. Please also consider the possibility of shortening long sentences.

Thank you. We have now re-worked the manuscript and made several small corrections.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a very interesting and good paper. I think with minor modifications, it can be accepted.

The paper discusses the value of urban green space for quality of life and sustainability, and designs a rigorous research framework. The results are presented clearly and the conclusions are valuable. In order to further improve the quality of the paper, I believe the author needs to pay attention to the following details:

Firstly, in the introduction section, the content of literature review is relatively weak. Authors need to classify and organize references, clarify the advantages and characteristics of scholars' research results, and present their key conclusions.

Secondly, in the introduction section, the author needs to provide one or two independent paragraphs that clearly and accurately explain the research gaps and questions.

Thirdly, the analysis in section 3.3 lacks necessary references. I recommend one of the latest literatures I am currently reading.

Xing, Z.; Zhao, S.; Li, K. Evolution Pattern and Spatial Mismatch of Urban Greenspace and Its Impact Mechanism: Evidence from Parkland of Hunan Province. Land 2023, 12, 2071. https://doi.org/10.3390/land12112071.

Fourthly, the quality of all images must be improved. They are too blurry and pose great difficulties for readers.

Fifth, 2.4 was missed between 2.3 and 2.5. Meanwhile, the description of the research method is relatively vague. I cannot find which models and measurement tools were used in this study.

Sixth, the theoretical contribution and innovation of this study can be moved from the discussion section to the introduction section.

Seventh, the author needs to clarify the shortcomings of this study, as no research is perfect.

Author Response

Reviewer 2 :

Open Review

(x) I would not like to sign my review report
( ) I would like to sign my review report

Quality of English Language

(x) I am not qualified to assess the quality of English in this paper
( ) English very difficult to understand/incomprehensible
( ) Extensive editing of English language required
( ) Moderate editing of English language required
( ) Minor editing of English language required
( ) English language fine. No issues detected

 

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Is the article adequately referenced?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?	(x)	( )	( )	( )

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a very interesting and good paper. I think with minor modifications, it can be accepted.

The paper discusses the value of urban green space for quality of life and sustainability, and designs a rigorous research framework. The results are presented clearly and the conclusions are valuable. In order to further improve the quality of the paper, I believe the author needs to pay attention to the following details:

• Firstly, in the introduction section, the content of literature review is relatively weak. Authors need to classify and organize references, clarify the advantages and characteristics of scholars' research results, and present their key conclusions.

Thank you for this suggestion. We have now re-worked and strengthened the Introduction.

• Secondly, in the introduction section, the author needs to provide one or two independent paragraphs that clearly and accurately explain the research gaps and questions.

Thank you for this suggestion. We have now re-worked and strengthened the Introduction and specifically addressed the research gaps.

 

• Thirdly, the analysis in section 3.3 lacks necessary references. I recommend one of the latest literatures I am currently reading.

Xing, Z.; Zhao, S.; Li, K. Evolution Pattern and Spatial Mismatch of Urban Greenspace and Its Impact Mechanism: Evidence from Parkland of Hunan Province. Land 2023, 12, 2071. https://doi.org/10.3390/land12112071.

Thank you for this recommendation. We looked at this reference and found it interesting, but we did not see which specific statement it could serve to support.

• Fourthly, the quality of all images must be improved. They are too blurry and pose great difficulties for readers.

Thank you. All images have been now provided as high-res files.

 

• Fifth, 2.4 was missed between 2.3 and 2.5. Meanwhile, the description of the research method is relatively vague. I cannot find which models and measurement tools were used in this study.

Thank you for catching this mistake, which we have now corrected.

 

• Sixth, the theoretical contribution and innovation of this study can be moved from the discussion section to the introduction section.

We have now done so.

 

• Seventh, the author needs to clarify the shortcomings of this study, as no research is perfect.

We hope that we did not convey that our research is (was) perfect! There is now a full paragraph lines 513-526 that covers the shortcomings of this work.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The topic selection of this paper has positive theoretical research and social practice significance. 

2. Further explain the scientificity and basis of the methods used in this paper to quantify and map the changes of UGS characteristics related to cultural ecosystem services. 

3. Some of the findings in this paper are valuable.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English expression is smooth and can be further optimized.

Author Response

Reviewer 3 :

Open Review

(x) I would not like to sign my review report
( ) I would like to sign my review report

Quality of English Language

( ) I am not qualified to assess the quality of English in this paper
( ) English very difficult to understand/incomprehensible
(x) Extensive editing of English language required
( ) Moderate editing of English language required
( ) Minor editing of English language required
( ) English language fine. No issues detected

 

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Is the article adequately referenced?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?	( )	(x)	( )	( )

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The topic selection of this paper has positive theoretical research and social practice significance. 

 

Thank you!

2. Further explain the scientificity and basis of the methods used in this paper to quantify and map the changes of UGS characteristics related to cultural ecosystem services. 

 

We unfortunately are not sure that we understood the nature of this feedback, and therefore were unable to address this point.

3. Some of the findings in this paper are valuable.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English expression is smooth and can be further optimized.

Respectfully submitted.