Assessing the Spatial Equity of Urban Park Green Space Layout from the Perspective of Resident Heterogeneity

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors examine this issue through the lens of resident heterogeneity, using the city of Nanjing as a case study. The paper is particularly timely given the rapid urbanization and the increasing importance of public green spaces for environmental and social well-being.

 

The authors have utilized LBS big data and multi-source geographic data to characterize residents' socioeconomic attributes, recreational behaviors, and park green space layout at the street scale. They constructed indicators to measure resident heterogeneity and the supply-demand matching degree of UPGS. The study reveals significant spatial inequity in the layout of UPGS in Nanjing, particularly in central urban areas and low-income communities.

 

This paper is interesting, well-written and structured. However, some points must be improved based on the following comments.

 

Abstract

1. Use the full name of the term LBS, not the abbreviation.

2. Do not use these subjective words, such an in-deep, because it is a research article, but not a report.

 

Introduction

Line 87. This paragraph highlighted the advantages of the mobile phone positioning data for to the research on UPGS. But the data input LBS data. The authors should introduce the advantages of LBS data, but not mobile phone positioning data, although they are similar, but two different terms.

 

Line 113 the last paragraph of Introduction part. This paragraph is redundancy and should be deleted because the structure of this paper is not complex.

 

Materials and data

Section 2.1 study area. The two paragraphs are tedious. The authors should only describe the current information on location, population, and UPGS of the study area, and delete the other’s sentences that do not related to the topic of this paper.

 

Section 2.2 Data input. All data are open accessed. The author should share these input data on a research dataset (such as https://data.mendeley.com/) to the readers, making it available that the reader could repeat the experiment/analysis.

 

Figure 2. Describe the full name of the abbreviation in the figure caption. This suggestion is same for the other figures and tables.

 

Line 241. The innovations of this study should be moved to the Discussion part, but not the method part.

 

Line 235 Firstly, through the analysis … evaluate the spatial equity of UPGS layout. These sentences are repeated with the titles from 3.2 to 3.5. Delete these sentences. Then, modify the sentence in line 232 as that “consists of four main parts described in sections from 3.2 to 3.5, respectively”. This modification will make the manuscript brief and clarify.

 

Describe the full name of AOI when it appears firstly. POI in line 223, points of interests, should also be marked the full name when it firstly be written.

 

Section 3.2. I think that using the LBS data to get the residents’ movement tracking, residential and recreational areas is jaundiced, because the use of Dian Ping APP is to find restaurant, hotels, and other commercial interactions. As a results, the stay points and stay durations maybe concentrated in the commercial areas. Is Dian Ping App only records the users’ location when this App is open? If it is, this result is jaundiced. But in my iPhone, whether the Dian Ping App records the users’ location when this App is open or all the time, is determined by the users. Therefore, I suggested that the author should clean the LBS data firstly, and only keep the users’ location records recorded all the time, and do not use the LBS data only recorded when this App is open. Else, the author should add a spatial correlation test. If the users’ location records do not correlate to the commercial areas that the Dian Ping APP is jaundiced to, the limitation to the result could be eliminated.

 

What is the input data of section 3.3, is the LBS data? How the author gets the house price of a resident? Table 3 only tell the unit price of a house, but line 286 uses the total price, which means that the author knows the hours living space/area and the name of the residential block for every survey resident. These analyses are black box and should be clarified.

 

Result

Caption of Figure 5. Modify it as Supply level (a), demand level (b), and spatial equity index (c).

 

Section 4.3. Link the related method of this results in the first sentence.

 

Caption of Figure 7. Add the full names and calculated equation of the three indices, SL, DL, and SEL in the caption. Add the full names of the types of resident groups.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the possibility to reviewing.

This study utilizes multi-source big data to reveal the negative correlation between resident heterogeneity and the spatial equity of UPGS layout at a fine scale.

I have no comments on the article, which is fairly developed. Certainly, it is a valuable voice in the discussion of how to use data to better design and manage green spaces in cities.

From a design point of view, the eventual gains of such research and its results for planning, designing our modern cities as more resilient is of course interesting. And as the authors themselves point out therefore, how to achieve a balance between statistical significance and interpretive significance is worth further exploration.

Hoping that the use of such "tracking" applications in research will bring some real benefit to the well-being of the environmental and not just the maintenance of power. Time will tell...

Regards.

Author Response

Thanks for your positive feedback and thoughtful comments on the manuscript.

As the reviewer mentions, we performed detailed analyses to reveal the relationships between UPGS and diverse residents combining multi-source new datasets. Your recognition of the potential gains from our research for modern city planning is highly encouraging. We have expanded our discussion on the practical implications of our findings, specifically how urban planners and designers can leverage our insights to create more equitable and resilient urban green spaces. Also, we share your hope that the use of such "tracking" applications will contribute positively to environmental well-being rather than merely supporting power structures. Considering the continuous improvement of data richness and accuracy in the future, we have included a discussion on the ethical considerations and potential societal impacts of the data-driven research. We emphasize the importance of transparency, consent, and the responsible use of data in further study.

Best wishes.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript (sustainability-3039551) titled "Assessing the spatial equity of urban park green space layout from the perspective of resident heterogeneity" presents a compelling investigation into UPGS distribution and its impact on social equity. The authors, Xia et al., leverage resident data and park location information to analyze park equity in Nanjing, China. Their findings reveal lower park accessibility in the city center and low-income communities, with a negative correlation between resident socioeconomic diversity and UPGS spatial equity. This study highlights the importance of incorporating resident needs in future UPGS planning, prioritizing underserved areas, and fostering public participation in decision-making processes. While the research rationale is clear, minor corrections and clarifications are necessary to enhance the manuscript's quality for publication. Please refer to the comments below for specific details.

1.     In general, English is good.

2.     In Abstract:

·        In Page 1-line 14: Please define the meaning of this "LBS" abbreviation.

3.     In the Introduction section:

·        In Page 2-line 92-95: Add a sentence emphasizing the research's importance and the existing gap it addresses.

·        In Page 3-line 101: Please define the meaning of this "LBS and AOI" abbreviations.

4.     In the Material section:

·        In Page 3-line 143: Which standards do you mean? Please give more details with reference here.

·        In Page 4-line 156: Introduce "LBS" and "AOI" abbreviations on first use (Line 101) and use abbreviations thereafter.

·        In Page 5-line 176: Please define the meaning of this "APP" abbreviations.

5.     Results:

6.     In Page 15-line 506: Please define the meaning of these abbreviations, i.e., SL, DL, SEL, MA-M-LI.

6.     Conclusion

·        Make it concise, highlighting the most important findings.

7.     There are some corrections in the figures as follows:

·        Generally, enlarge figures for better clarity and geographic reference.

·        Figure (1): Try to add symbols (a, b, c) to each map for clarification in Section 2.1 (Lines 130-144).

·        Fig (7): despite the importance of these figures. However, the small layout and unknown abbreviations can make a distribution to the readers. I recommend dividing this complex figure into two or three clearer figures with proper labels.

 

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After reviewing the manuscript titled "Assessing the Spatial Equity of Urban Park Green Space Layout from the Perspective of Resident Heterogeneity," here are my suggestions for improvement:

1. Introduction: The introduction effectively sets up the research question and contextualizes the importance of the study. You might consider adding a bit more on the specific contributions of your research to existing literature to highlight its novelty.

2. Methodology: The explanation of the data sources and methods is detailed and informative. However, simplifying some of the technical jargon or adding clarifying footnotes could make it more accessible to readers not familiar with geospatial analysis. Consider a small diagram to visually represent the methodological framework, as it can help in better understanding the complex data processing steps.

3. Discussion: It might be strengthened by discussing any counterintuitive findings or discrepancies with previous studies more thoroughly. Consider discussing the implications of your findings for urban planners and policy-makers more explicitly.

4. Conclusions: Adding forward-looking statements about future research directions or potential applications of the research could provide a stronger closing.

5. If the three authors are from the same organization, there is no need to describe it three times in the author information.

6. Figure 1 can be enlarged appropriately. It is too small to see clearly now.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript tackles the critical issue of spatial equity in the distribution of Urban Park Green Spaces (UPGS), highlighting its significance to contemporary urban planning and sustainability. The emphasis on resident heterogeneity is particularly commendable, as it enriches the discussion of equitable access to green spaces. Overall, the manuscript is well-structured, demonstrating a logical flow from the introduction to the conclusion. However, it would benefit from enhanced clarity and standardization in its use of terminology.

Data Usage and Methodology:

The application of Big Spatial Data (BS) and multi-source geographic data is notable and provides a strong framework for analyzing UPGS accessibility. To strengthen the manuscript, a more detailed account of the data processing and analytical methods is essential. This detail will improve the study's reproducibility and credibility. Authors should include comprehensive descriptions of data cleaning, processing, and the specific analytical tools employed.

Implications for Policy and Practical Application:

The discussion on translating research findings into actionable urban planning and policy-making strategies is highly pertinent. This section should be expanded to include specific recommendations for urban greening strategies and public participation mechanisms, which would greatly enhance the manuscript's practical value.

Terminology and Definitions:

It is crucial that the term 'UPGS equity' is clearly defined at its first occurrence to ensure consistency and prevent any ambiguity throughout the text.

 

Statistical Validation:

The manuscript would benefit from further statistical validation of the data. The inclusion of sensitivity analyses or error metrics is recommended to bolster the robustness of the findings.

Literature Integration:

The findings of "Spatial Structure of an Urban Park System Based on Fractal Theory: A Case Study of Fuzhou, China" should be cited and discussed. This reference will complement your analysis of spatial patterns and provide a theoretical framework for understanding the complex spatial structures of urban parks.

Moreover, the insights from "Visitation-based classification of urban parks through mobile phone big data in Tokyo" should be incorporated to enhance the discussion on park usage patterns and management strategies. The methodology and findings of this study offer a practical lens through which to view big data analytics in urban park research.

Technicalities and Language:

Please ensure all abbreviations, such as 'LBS' for Location-Based Services, are defined upon their first use in the abstract to enhance the manuscript's accessibility to all readers.

The manuscript makes a significant contribution to the field of urban planning and green space management. With the suggested revisions and additional citations, it could serve as a more comprehensive resource for policymakers and urban planners focused on fostering sustainable and equitable urban environments.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The MS has been improved a lot. All my comments have been revised. I suggest that the author need to check the language. Some examples are the following.

1. when proprietary terms first appear in the article, they should be used in full, and abbreviations should be used later. The Author should check it again. For example, in the abstract, the author should write as Location-based Service (LBS), but the LBS (Location-based Service) is an error in line 13.

2. Some numbers should be written as English words, but not as Arabic numerals. For example, 9 districts --> nine districts in line 125. The author should check the whole manuscript for this written error.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments to the Author

This paper is well-written and presents its findings in a clear and structured manner. I am very interested in seeing it published.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has made the suggested revisions, and I agree to accept this manuscript.

Author Response

Thank you very much for carefully reviewing and approving our submitted paper " Assessing the spatial equity of urban park green space layout from the perspective of resident heterogeneity".

The insightful comments and suggestions provided by you and the reviewers have significantly enhanced the quality of our paper. We are truly thankful for your time and effort.

We look forward to contributing more to the field in the future and hope for more opportunities to receive your valuable feedback.

Thank you once again for your support and guidance.

Best wishes.

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Pretty good revision that basically addresses the issues I raised.

The study looks more into how existing policies affect the distribution and equity of green space, as well as making specific policy recommendations, all of which may be of great help to urban planners and policy makers.

Although you mention the citation in your response, it doesn't show up in the manuscript.

Good Luck.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Can be improved.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper has been revised and improved. I suggested that the manuscript would be accepted.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required