Assessing the Accessibility and Equity of Urban Green Spaces from Supply and Demand Perspectives: A Case Study of a Mountainous City in China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you very much for having the opportunity to read this paper. This paper mainly analyzes the spatial pattern of accessibility to urban green spaces and its correlation with physical geographical elements and socio-economic factors in the mountainous Chongqing region. These results provide valuable implications for urban planning and policy making, highlighting the need to address the blind spot problem of urban green space accessibility. However, the analysis of various physical and geographical elements and social and economic factors on the accessibility of urban green space is shallow and insufficient. The design of the experiment was not considered enough, and the combined influence of multiple factors was not taken into account. To discuss the accessibility and fairness of green space in Chongqing from the perspective of supply and demand needs complete data support.

 1. In Introduction, the review of methods is incomplete and additional literature is needed. For example, the 2SFCA model has not been clearly reviewed and properly cited.

2. In Section 2.2, the impact of Chongqing's steep terrain on driving should also be taken into account in line 178-184.  In addition, in line 185, street accessibility is calculated by averaging the accessibility of urban green space in each district. The actual topography of each street and the prevailing mode of travel of residents will affect the final calculation results and should be taken into account.

3. In Section 3.3, the correlation between several physical geographic factors and socioeconomic factors in Table 2 and the accessibility of urban green space is not adequately expressed. It is recommended that the authors conduct a more detailed supplementary analysis in Section 3.3.

4. In discussion, although the discussion drawn are adequately supported by the data, we believe they could be presented in a more appealing and engaging manner to better convey their significance and impact.

5. The current manuscript needs to be polished by a native English speaker or a professional language editing service.

 There's some language logic that needs tweaking.

（1）Line 50-51, it is recommended to add a linking word or phrase after "Furthermore" to lead to the next sentence, for example: "Furthermore, as urbanization accelerates globally..."

（2）Line 54-55, it is suggested that the sentence "Assessing the availability of UGSs may provide an in-depth awareness of resource distribution." be placed in the first sentence of the paragraph. To better transition to new paragraphs.

（3）Line 59, it is suggested to replace The sentence "The rational allocation of green space resources..." Place at the beginning of a paragraph to better introduce the topic of the paragraph.

（4）Line 64-65, in the sentence "Research has sought to integrate accessibility..." Then add a linking word or phrase to guide the next sentence, such as: "Moreover, various approaches and models..."

（5）Line 74-75, it is suggested that "Most academic research places emphasis on..." Then add a conjunction or phrase to guide the next sentence, such as: "However, it often fails to thoroughly investigate..."

（6）Line100, it is suggested that in Chongqing, a typical mountainous city... Then add a linking word or phrase to guide the next sentence, for example: "In Chongqing's environment..."

The current manuscript needs to be polished by a native English speaker or a professional language editing service.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Abstract:

1.     The meaning of the first sentence of the Abstract is unclear. Urban green space accessibility is insufficient due to the limitations of evaluation methods?

2.     The description of the method is too cumbersome, please simplify it.

3.     The implications of the study in the abstract are a little bit vague, please make it more concrete.

 

Introduction:

1.     In the first paragraph of the Introduction section, I suggest the authors to add the following references in the introduction section to relate this study to the broader field of ecosystem-based approaches for urban sustainability: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2023.104843, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2018.12.063

2.     Please clearly state the scientific questions and objectives at the end of the Introduction section.

3.     I suggest that the authors move “the contributions of this study to the UGS evaluation literature” to the discussion section.

4.     The reason for selecting Chongqing as the study area should be moved to study area section.

 

Materials and Methods:

1.     Data collection should be 2,2 which followed 2.1 study area.

2.     When introduce a new method, please tell the reader the purpose for using this method first.

 

Resutls:

1.     Line 302: “3.2”?

2.     Figure 3 and Figure 5: It is sufficient to retain two decimal places for the legends in this Figure.

3.     The legends of Figure 5 are too small to read.

 

Discussion:

The discussion of the current version is too simple. The discussion section is an interpretation of the results, and should be written closely to the results or interesting findings, but the discussion of the current version is too simple. I suggest the authors add two or three sub-sections to discuss how their results answered their research questions. What does their results mean? Compare their results with that of others.

Minor editing of English language required。

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

In general, the manuscript entitled “Assessing the accessibility and equity of urban green spaces from supply and demand perspectives: A case study of a mountainous city in China” should be acceptable for publication, but some problems must be addressed prior to publication, as the manuscripts needs some improvement. Some punctual observations/suggestions regarding the paper's content are outlined in the attached document.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

English language should be revised by a native speaker, as some of the paragraphs fail to give a clear understanding of the authors findings.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

• All comments have been revised.

Reviewer 2 Report

All my issues have been well addressed.