Spatial Equity of Urban Park Distribution: Examining the Floating Population within Urban Park Catchment Areas in the Context of the 15-Minute City

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an interesting and unusual paper.  The methodology of using floating populations, based on big data sources is creative but has its drawbacks (little data on income, habits, health etc).

I have some suggestions for improving the paper and its ease of understanding by potential readers.

I think the English could be improved.  For example, there is too much use of 'passive voice' e.g. (there has been a need for…) when active voice would read better (e.g. we need, or city dwellers need).  Also the phrase 'utilising the floating population big data' is a touch of jargon and may not be understood by the general reader.  I took this to mean using estimates of floating populations derived from big data sources - if this is correct, then this phrase would be more easily understood.

In presenttaion of the results, I think the quadrants id Figure 5 should have been labelled as Type 1, Type 2 etc.  Otherwise the reader might mis-read the axis wording.

Why was there no data presented either on socioeconomic status of residents or descriptive characteristics (residential, retail/office, industrial) for the districts in each quadrant?  This would have helped an understanding of inequalities or whether those accessing parks were likely to be local residents.

Overall the discussion and conclusions could say a bit more about the implications for City Strategic Plans.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English could be improved.  Too much use is made of passive voice and there is a bit too much jargon or shorthand.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper should made major revision.References should be updated.Results and conclusions should be discussed with cited references.Methodology need citing the related references.Presentation needs editing and checking out.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

moderate editing.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

the authors deal with the 15-minute city topic that continues to grasp academic and institutional attention.

The work is well structured but the authors need to improve some state of art and method aspects:

section 1: the title refers to 15-minute city, equity and green areas topics but they are not described properly. What is the link between 15-minute city and equity? is it only a spatial problem? why green areas? they are related to sustainability, and climate change issues that, in turn, can be related to 15-minute city. Furthermore, all these mentioned topics are related to accessibility which is not considered in this first section that should provide the scientific context.

please move Seoul description in study area section.

section 2: why 600 m  and 900 m? they are not suitable values for all population segments? the authors mentioned different time day ranges for calculation floating population values. How were these different values merged? please explain better the meaning of variables Ra, Pca  and the same in the formula related to population.

please edit table 1, is not easy to understand.

please add some resuming tables to compare the different clusters of districts and describe deeply the related equity (or not) results.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

minor edits to make sentences more fluid

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Evaluation Report
General Comments	The research discusses very important points aimed to analyze the distribution characteristics of a total of 354 urban parks in Seoul, South Korea, utilizing the floating population big data and the urban park catchment areas, in the context of the 15-minute city. The study suggested strategies to improve the spatial equity of urban parks for each type, including qualitative improvement, quantitative increase, redistribution, and accessibility optimization. The concept of the 15-minute city has recently garnered attention as a measure to realize sustainable and equitable urban development. The plan for this, which emerged in tandem with the contraction of living radii due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the activation of personal mobility, redefines human activity and quality of life, focusing on proximity to the urban space. Relatively, In Seoul, South Korea, the “10-minute Neighborhood Life-enhancing SOC Project,” walking distance (250–500m). I acknowledge the efforts were made by the researcher(s). They did a professional challenge with the limited information about the case study in hand. In the introduction, the research problem and the methodology are apparent. Research Problem: The macro and micro scales should be elaborated. Research Objectives and methodology of the research to solve the research problem are clear.
Advantage & Disadvantage	The spatial equity of urban parks was analyzed by examining the relationship between the area and population ratios for the 600m and 900m catchment areas respectively, for each of the 25 autonomous districts. The data collection part is well prepared and includes the sources and how the researcher used them. The practical part is well-designed and done in a highly professional way. Results are well presented. There is a minor disadvantage in the background.
How to improve	There is a need to show the deep of the problem.   Please add the limitations and challenges and the needed work in future research. Elaborate the criteria for classifying the urban park distribution into four types at the beginning of the research. The conclusion and recommendations showed the achievements of the research in relation to the research problem and objectives clearly.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Now the revised has been greatly improved .