Measurement and Development of Park Green Space Supply and Demand Based on Community Units: The Example of Beijing’s Daxing New Town
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for submitting your work. After an attentive review of your manuscript, some requests for integration and clarifications have emerged, which are considered useful in order to enhance your paper.
The originality and novelty of the paper should be better conveyed to the readers by making it more clear in the abstract, Introduction, and Conclusions.
Other major and minor issues have been noted. Please find them below for your perusal:
- "A megacity usually refers to a city with a permanent population of more than 5 million.": please, provide a reference here,
- Daxing New Town: please provide here GPS coordinates in order to make it correctly identifiable,
- "... 85 community units(Figure 1)": please insert a space after "units",
- Figure 1: a map of China seems necessary to better localize the Daxing District. Moreover, the Administrative divisions in b) are a bit confusing because of the overlapping of the names of the different neighborhoods. I suggest you create a Legend to list them and assign them a number that you can easily refer to this Legend. In addition, please consider inserting the North, and a metric scale to better circumstantiate the maps. Lastly, please put the source of the images used and/or credits, and if it is your rework or an Authors' elaboration,
- "... in the seventh census": when was it done? Please insert a year,
- "... combined with the POI data ...": please use the extended name of POI when it appears in the text for the first time, then you can use only the acronym,
- 2.2.3 Other data: do not use numbers inside the bubbles, but in this way: 1), 2), 3), and 4). You could organize it into a numbered bullet list. Moreover, I would opt for replacing the DOI reference placed here in the manuscript with a reference and moving the DOI code to the Reference List,
- "... combined with the "14th Five-Year Plan" for Beijing": please provide the period to which the Plan is referring (years-years),
- Figures 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10: please put in the caption if the schemes and/or images are your rework or an Authors' elaboration,
- "... coupling coordination model proposed by Shujia Wang et al.": please insert a year after referring to Shujia Wang et al.. Moreover, please indicate only the surname,
- "3. results": please revise in Results,
- Discussion needs to be presented before the Conclusions,
- "The core location covers an area 412 of 538.3 hm2 ...": please revise the unit of measurement,
- "... Shou bao villege ...": please, revised into "village",
- Discussions: the limitations you presented need to be moved to the Conclusions section. In the Discussions, please provide some consideration regarding this study in comparison with other international studies in the field, in order to place your study into the academic community and what is done in your paper differently compared to the other ones, for example. I suggest using non-Chinese case studies to generalize more your findings and make your paper inside an international debate. This will be helpful to reinforce the Reference List, which now counts only 40 references.
- Reference List: please check n. 31 and 39 of the list. Are the names of the scholars reported in the same style as in the other references?
- Author Contributions: here, please only use the initials of your first and last names and not them in full, as shown in the template provided by the Publisher.
Lastly, a final check of the English form and grammar is suggested to fix some fine/minor spell checks and clarifications.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
Congratulations for the paper. The paper is very well written I have some minor suggestions that I expect to help.
I missed the conclusion section and I think the maps are too small, if possible, try to improve the size to illustrate better the results.
best regards
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
There are some details needed to be improved in the manuscript. Comments and Suggestions for Authors are as follows.
1. The literature review is much limited in the section of “Introduction”. It is also important to add some relevant studies about community unit.
2. Line 144-148: Explain better this sentence "Referring to the data of the Beijing Municipal Forestry and Parks Bureau (http://yllhj.beijing.gov.cn/), combined with the POI data obtained from Baidu Map, Gaode Map and ArcGIS software visual interpretation of remote sensing images (from Landsat8 OLI_TIRS image data in late December 2020 of Geospatial Data Cloud, with spatial resolution of 30 m (with cloudiness ≤10%), a total of 41 instances of green ground data for Daxing New City Park were collated."
3. Line 248: Table 2 needs to be further improved.
4. Line 269-274: "The coupling degree CC is generally in the range of 0~1.00. TT is the value in equation (9), and D denotes the degree of coordinated development." There are double C and T in the sentences.
5. Equation(1) and (7) need to be further improved. Such as, the first “,” in equation(1) should be deleted.
6. Figure1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 10 are not so clear, which need to be further improved.
7. The section of “Conclusion” is too long and needs to be further summarized，where the innovative contribution of the work is missing
8. There is not enough literature reviews and research summaries in the section of “Discussion”, which should be strengthened appropriately.
9. The languages of this manuscript need to be further improved.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Useful and interesting research work about the balance study of green space demands/offers through the development of a practical Index to characterize the quality of green spaces and the demand level from the local population.
1. What is the main question addressed by the research? Balance quantification between green spaces demand and disponibility/accessibility by residents2. Do you consider the topic original or relevant in the field? Does it
address a specific gap in the field? Yes, because this question is essential to promote sustainable development processes, and this fact should be analyzed from a specific point of view to help public management about the importance of designing and establishing a "green spaces/green infrastructure" program.
3. What does it add to the subject area compared with other published
material? Add more knowledge about the topic by employing a not complex index, that can be replicated in other parts of the world. 4. What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the
methodology? What further controls should be considered? Only could be explained better the relation between the index used and the quality of green spaces.
5. Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and do they address the main question posed? Yes 6. Are the references appropriate? Enough
7. Please include any additional comments on the tables and figures.
No comments
Some other remarks:
Line 145. POI is the first time (I think) that appears in the text, please explain its meaning.
Line 173. Please explains, briefly, the relationship between Net primary production and quality/amount of ecological services. "..the land type..." would be better "...land cover type..."
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for your review and efforts to refine your manuscript. I appreciate your willingness and cooperation in responding to all the points I have identified. However, some minor issues are still present and please check them in the following lines.
In general, please pay attention to the double spaces and unnecessary or missing spaces still present in the text.
Finally, I suggest the following written in green, based on the authors' answers to my previous questions, which I kindly ask you to resolve:
Point 1 –The originality and novelty of the paper should be better conveyed to the readers by making it more clear in the abstract, Introduction, and Conclusions.
Response 1: Thank you for the thoughtful suggestion. We emphasize our originality and novelty in lines 107-112 of the introduction and lines 413-423 of the discussion section: The scale of the study has been precisely defined to the smallest administrative division of China - the community unit; the breadth of the indicators selected for the measurement of green space supply and demand has been improved, and 10 indicators have been selected from four perspectives: Ecological service efficiency, Reachability, Fairness, and Material needs.
Reviewer: Thank you for the implementation. However, I think that a brief indication of the novelty of your work should be included in the abstract. Also, there is a typo here "development suggestions ,draw a conclusion" regarding the use of the comma; please review. Also in the Discussion, the novelty aspect should be strengthened by trying to say whether other scholars' research has already adopted the community unit and what his research expands on compared to others. In addition, the sentences "while the material demand is represented by two factors selected as POI density and construction land ratio, The aggregation of POI ... in urban areas to a certain extent, so the ratio of construction land is chosen as an indicator for calculation .(Table 1)." are affected by typos due to the revisions made, so please correct them. Finally, if the indicators are part of the innovative approach you used, please make them clearer.
Point 2 –"A megacity usually refers to a city with a permanent population of more than 5 million.": please, provide a reference here.
Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. We have added references in lines 36-37 of the introduction.
Reviewer: here, please also add a reference to help foreign readers easily find this standard in the reference list.
Point 8 – 2.2.3 Other data: do not use numbers inside the bubbles, but in this way: 1), 2), 3), and 4). You could organize it into a numbered bullet list. Moreover, I would opt for replacing the DOI reference placed here in the manuscript with a reference and moving the DOI code to the Reference List,
Response 8: Thank you for pointing it out, and we have replaced the number formatting in lines 166-175. Also, there may be a formatting problem in a previous draft where the DOI number should be the website URL, and we have linked the website URL here.
Reviewer: thank you for the review. However, I do not feel very comfortable seeing the links to points 1), 3), 4) and 5) in the numbered list; I would suggest moving them to the reference list and replacing them in the text with the usual [xx].
Point 15 –Discussions: the limitations you presented need to be moved to the Conclusions section. In the Discussions, please provide some consideration regarding this study in comparison with other international studies in the field, in order to place your study into the academic community and what is done in your paper differently compared to the other ones, for example. I suggest using non-Chinese case studies to generalize more your findings and make your paper inside an international debate.
Response 15: We are grateful for the suggestion, and the limitations have been moved into the conclusion section. The inclusion of cases from other national capitals as comparisons in lines 413-423 summarizes the uniqueness of this paper and includes some international references as appropriate.
Reviewer: thank you for the review and for adding international examples to support your discussion. However, this paragraph still seems a bit unbalanced compared to the lines dedicated to international case studies and the others dedicated to building more on your case study. Consider expanding more on the international case studies or on other national case studies that carry out similar studies but in a different way, in order to clarify where your study can be placed (for example, I suggest consulting a paper on rural landscape reconstruction that, in the discussion part, provides these comparisons to better situate the research carried out by these authors
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.06.021).
- Gullino, P., Pomatto, E., Gaino, W., Devecchi, M., & Larcher, F. (2020). New Challenges for Historic Gardens’ Restoration: A Holistic Approach for the Royal Park of Moncalieri Castle (Turin Metropolitan Area, Italy). Sustainability, 12(23), 10067. MDPI AG. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su122310067 - Gullino, P., Beccaro, G., & Larcher, F. (2015). Assessing and Monitoring the Sustainability in Rural World Heritage Sites. Sustainability, 7(10), 14186–14210. MDPI AG. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su71014186
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
