Roles of Urban Green Spaces for Children in High-Density Metropolitan Areas during Pandemics: A Systematic Literature Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

First of all I would like to congratulate the authors on the volume and quality of work that has have undertaken. 

I just have some small general suggestions which I think would improve the article. 

Firstly, could you please clarify how the papers without a pandemic focus contribute to this work? I think you can make the theoretical justification clearer.

I like the pragmatic tone of the discussion and the focus on planning and policy but this section would benefit from a paragraph about what future studies can contribute. Specifically discussing theoretical development and methodologies that may help to contribute evidence for planning and policy. 

I disagree with the title name 4.2.1. Sufficient geospatial integration. This section focusses on minimising socioeconomic inequalities so please could you rename the title. I understand what you are saying in the title but geospatial inequalities tend to be driven by social determinants of health and I don’t think this section currently discusses geospatial variation sufficiently to be titled so. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

1.     Lines 107-111. There are many elements included in green space. Please justify why only ‘parks’, ‘gardens’ and ‘playgrounds’ were chosen.

2.     Table 1. Please justify why include the “high-density” related keywords in the literature search.

3.     Table 2: Please explain why only included literature written in English or Chinese.

4.     Figure 1: The font in Figure 1 is too small to read.

5.     2.4 Thematic analysis.  It is recommended that the authors show the codes used in the thematic analysis.

6.     2.5 Limitations: Suggest that authors place the limitation section in the discussion section.

7.     I suggest the authors cite the following references in the Introduction section to relate this study to the broader field of nature-based solutions for urban sustainability. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2023.104843, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2018.12.063

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

There is no doubt that you have conducted a systematic and detailed review on the roles that urban green spaces play for children living in high-density metropolitan areas during pandemics. However, there are some weaknesses that require accurate inspection and review.

(1) The title of the article is too lengthy, it is recommended to optimize and streamline it.

(2) The introduction should emphasize the benefits of urban green space for children in urban areas and further clarify the significance of research. In addition, it is necessary to strengthen the review of the impact of the COVID-19 epidemic on children in high-density urban areas.

(3) Could the author explain the impact of global warming on children in high-density urban areas?

(4) In 3.1. Descriptive analysis, the review analysis of different topics should not be limited to comparing the number of published articles.

(5) Why were these four types of functions chosen in the thematic analysis, and can they fully reflect the functions of children’s UGS in metropolitan areas?

(6) The discussion section should be closely related to the research topic, and the impact of urban green spaces on the heat island effect seems to deviate from the research background and direction.

(7) The discussion should highlight the impact of epidemics on various aspects of children and point out the practical significance of UGS in its process.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I am glad to see the revisions made by the authors.  All my issues have been well-addressed.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Thank you for your feedback. We have now carefully reviewed the manuscript and made necessary edits to enhance the clarity and coherence of the language. Please refer to the highlighted sections in the revised manuscript.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has made detailed revisions to the article based on the comments of the reviewers and provided effective responses. I suggest that the author further standardize the language expression and optimize the format of the article before publishing it in the Sustainability.

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have now carefully reviewed and revised the manuscript to ensure it aligns with the standards expected for publication in Sustainability. We have now enhanced the clarity and formatting of the article accordingly. Please refer to the highlighted sections in the revised manuscript.

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx