A Framework for the Spatial Inequality in Urban Public Facility for Urban Planning, Design and Management
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
I hope you're well
I appreciate your scientific effort to produce this manuscript. I have some comments to help you improve your paper:
1) In the abstract is a lack of research methods, results and conclusions. I suggest adding these aspects to make readers know more about your research.
2) The introduction doesn´t include the research hypothesis.
3). Section 2: I suggest more elaborating/expanding on the section by adding, for example, a flowchart to the article to show the research methodology.
4) Tables 2-6: It should be better to give the full meanings directly in the table head or earlier in the text.
5) Most references need to be re-written for the following reasons: write the reference in the MDPI format, add the DOI for all references.
Best regards,
Reviewer
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This article appears to be well organized and structured and uses appropriate methodologies to provide a comprehensive overview of the spatial inequality/injustice/inequity research related to urban public facilities. I didn't notice any errors in the text, figures, or tables. However, some mistakes need to be corrected: in lines 159 and 476, the recreational facility is omitted when talking about the six UPF groups.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
[Q1] The abstract does not reflect the urban planning, design and management. Moreover, it is not well written to reflect the findings of this overview, at least the situation of the urban public facilities.
[Q2] This paper cites a lot of references in an only sentence, such as Line 30 and Line 38. Please remove them. I suggest you separate the references after each phrase.
[Q3] Line 72-76, a reference is needed.
[Q4] line 116-123, it does not present the urban planning, design and management. Please integrate urban planning, design and management into the introduction section. Moreover, the introduction is not well written to focus on the urban equality, …
[Q5] I do not think the terms including facility, amenity and public service are enough for query. Please define such three indicators. I believe many studies have explicitly indicated the facilities, rather than using facility.
[Q6] Apart from such five types of facilities, are there any other facilities such as shading, sheltering, watering, cooling facilities? There is an increasingly number of climate resilient facilities such as water sensitive urban design, and cooling centres and facilities. Please refer: Beating the urban heat: Situation, background, impacts and the way forward in China. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. A framework for addressing urban heat challenges and associated adaptive behavior by the public and the issue of willingness to pay for heat resilient infrastructure in Chongqing, China. Sustainable Cities and Society.
[Q7] I do not think the analysis can generate the analytical framework of the spatial inequality in urban public facilities. There is a big gap to generate different layers.
[Q8] The discussion is shallow to point out the trend and implications of urban planning, design and management.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Authors present a very interesting study on the spatial inequality of urban public facilities allocation and on the urban environment and system as a whole, with suggestion for future intervention design-based (renewal of the city) and policy-based (definition of guidelines and suggestions for the public administrators and the municipalities). The main topic is relevant, strictly relatade to urban planning and social issues. It fits the scope of the Journal and the paper is well written.
Some specific suggestions:
1) please provide the definition of "urban facilities" that you consider for the research. I do not agree completelyu with the addition of "commercial function" as a facility. I undestand what authors mean, but I prefer to read the definition that let you analyze the objects with this point of view;
2) Section 4.1 and figure 1 are not discussion but methodology! Especially Fig.1, explain very well the logical framework used to implement the research!
3) The specific connections with places (Shenzen, New York, and so on) derive from the literature review, correct? Please specify that ypur research is not place-based. Maybe, as a note in the conclusion section, you can underline that, as future steps of the research, an application on one or more territory and urban areas will be made;
4) In my opinion, Tables 1-6 and their explanation can be part of the discussion or a specific chapter/sub chapter because they are not just results but an evaluation and a definzion of possible guidelines. In my opinion, again, your results are the description of what find through the literature review.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 5 Report
The topic may be worthy of investigation, but the manuscript does not have the minimum requirements of scientific relevance to be considered for publication in a journal of the level of Land.
Any kind of methodological process is proposed, beyond saying that a review of the scientific literature has been made and the analyzed questions have been grouped. There are no formulas or mathematical analysis, it is only said that a framework will be made based on the existing scientific literature, which is not a relevant contribution to this scientific field.
By the other hand, the results do not provide any objective scientific evidence either. They are simply descriptive and general, since there is no numerical analysis.
Consequently, the research poses some deficiencies that are too serious to be able to propose specific modifications or improvements that allow its subsequent publication. I recommend the authors to rethink the research from the beginning, providing a more scientific approach based on some numerical evidence that allows them to make a relevant contribution to the field of study.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Authors have well responded to my comments.
Reviewer 5 Report
I regret I have to maintain my previous comments.
