Refugee Children’s Access to Play in Meso-Environments: A Novel Approach Using Space Syntax and GIS
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Manuscript ID: buildings-2092558
Title: Refugee children’s access to play in meso-environments: A novel method using Space Syntax and GIS
Authors: Siqi Chen* , Martin Knöll*
The topic and the idea of the study is very interesting, the scope is not very wide, but the proposed method are valuable. However there are some weaknesses in selected parts of the manuscript which must be revised.
Main comments and suggestions for Authors:
1. In the case of the title - I have some doubts whether it is a new method; the presented study is rather a new approach related to assessment of selected aspects in the context of refugee children’s access to play in meso-environments.
Key words are well selected and in line to the topic and study itself. The construction of an Abstract is also clear and includes all important information.
2. The Introduction is much developed - Authors mention main important aspects which create very deep and interesting background for the study presented in the manuscript, also the specifics of refugee children has been presented, including references to some studies on that field.
A small weakness of this part of the manuscript is the way of formulating the aim of the study - the Authors use descriptive sentences saying that "this paper presents an assessment of refugee children concerning meso-environments playspaces accessibility and comparable results from six refugee accommodation neighbourhoods." (lines 56-58). Since this is a research manuscript, it is better to reorganize this sentence and say precisely that the main objective of the study is to do sth. etc.
3. Methodology – this order of elements presented in this part is generally well organized, study design is clear. All subsections include clear and well presented main information; the sites for the study are well selected, also stages of the research are mostly clear in my opinion – however, some more description/explanation of the Space Syntax and GIS tool used for data collection could be included, and especially the novelty of used method as it is listed in the title. In my opinion the material presented in this manuscript is focused more one a new approach related to data collection and especially study onaspects related to access to play in meso-environments for refugees’ children, than on a new method itself.
A small sample size (6 locations) can be found as limitation, but in my opinion the research presented in the manuscript is a kind of a pilot study (what should be highlighted in the content) with a potential to be developed/repeat on a larger sample in future in Berlin but also in other cities to collect more deep results and create wider a basis for further comparisons, etc.
4. Results are rather synthetic and at the same time well divided into subsections, they include main information and relations observed between studied locations.
Unfortunately selected Figures are not very clear – e.g. the graphic information presented on Figures 6,7,8 and also Fig. 9 is difficult to see/read due to very small size of each area/elements, etc. This data is very important and thus the Figures need better resolution (quality), etc.
5. Discussion:
The first paragraph promises an interesting discussion and the aspects presented are relevant to the study, unfortunately the way and scope of their presentation is insufficient. The limited access to presented playspaces and the expected effects resulted from this situation on children should be further developed as a form of argument for the need to expand this research. Some deeper interpretation in the context of other studies is needed (literature) concerning also e.g. leisure needs and/or typical behaviors of refugee’s children, etc. (which was partly indicated in the Introduction section).
Another weakness of the Discussion is also to lead it towards focusing the main attention on limitations, which is a methodological mistake in my opinion, and at the same time reduces much the scientific soundness (and value) of the pilot study presented in this manuscript. The novelty of conducted study must be more highlighted in this section.
In conclusion, the Discussion section needs to be rewrite and improved, and the values of the study must be much more emphasized, otherwise it will decrease the quality of presentation.
6. Conclusions are acceptable and related to the obtained results.
Summing up - selected parts, especially Discussion must be reorganized/improved, thus I can not recommend the manuscript to be published in its present form.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
15 December 2022
Prof. Yao Fu
Ms. Becky Yue
Special Issue Editors and Assistant Editor, Child-Friendly Built Environment, Buildings
Dear Prof. Yao Fu and Ms. Becky Yue:
buildings-2092558: Refugee children’s access to play in meso-environments: A novel method using Space Syntax and GIS
We would like to thank the Reviewer 1 for the positive and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We appreciate the opportunity to revise and resubmit.
In our response document, I have italicised the comments from the Reviewer 1 and have placed our reply below each comment in red plain text. The text in the boxes identifies the relevant part in the manuscript that has been revised or added (modified text is marked up using the “Track Changes” function.
We hope that our manuscript is now suitable for publication in Buildings.
Thank you for considering our manuscript.
Yours sincerely,
Siqi Chen
on behalf of all authors
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors present a study investigating refugee children’s access to play spaces in Berlin. They apply GIS and Space Syntax methods. The general topic is interesting and worthwhile of investigation. I commend to attempt to integrate Space Syntax in this research.
I also see some shortcomings that should be addressed before this research is suitable for publication.
As stated above, I was intrigued by the integration of space syntax in this topic. However, the respective analysis remains on a superficial level: Next to showing that an axial map can be used to quantify spatial accessibility of play spaces, there is basically no additional value gained from this approach. Are properties of axial maps equally or more or less informative concerning the access of refugee children to play spaces than a GIS-based approach? Are play spaces located at more integrated lines more attractive and more visited by refugee children and their parents? The authors also mention crime as one concern of parents. I believe there are studies linking axial maps to crime rates, so that might be a relevant point to integrate. As of now, the whole space syntax part does not add very much to the paper, unfortunately.
A second point is the potential implications of the observed accessibility. The paper is concerned with different approaches of measuring the accessibility of play spaces, with the underlying argument that play spaces are important for children, and most particular for refugee children. But, they provide no evidence how this actually impacts the children living in these specific facilities. They state that they ask the staff (how many per facilitiy, by the way?) to rate the meso-environment suitability for playing. It is an underwhelming finding that facilities with more formal playgrounds in closer proximity get higher ratings. The authors could have asked staff members to rate all or at least name the best and the worst play spaces. They could have tried to observe which play spaces were actually used by refugee children. Even rather basic information in this regard would allow for more detailed analysis of which kind of play space (distance/accessibility, size, usage by other children, …) is relevant for refugee children and refugee facilities. This would also make the integration of space syntax measures more relevant.
Minor issues:
Please define the difference between play spaces and play grounds early in the manuscript. The distinction may not be obvious to all readers.
Throughout the manuscript, nouns used as proper names should be written with a capital first letter (e.g. “site 1” should be “Site 1”, similar with “step”)
L63: missing “at” before “vicinities”
L65: “neighbourhoods by approximated 10-15 minutes of walking” – Please rephrase. You mean the perceive the area accessible within 10-15min of walking as their neighborhood?
L83: unsafely -> unsafe
L89: potentialities -> potential
Section 3.1: I believe that the landuse category of the facility itself (which may be quite small) may be less informative than the proportion of the different landuse categories around the facility.
Provide more details about the staff that was interviewed. How many per facility? Consider reaching out again and asking more specific questions (see above).
Section 3.3.2 and Figure 3: Even after reading this section repeatedly, it was not clear to me what the authors attempted here.
L216: “how physically intimate space is related to all other spaces” -> perhaps introduce integration as a measure reflecting the centrality of a space as compared to all other spaces in the network.
L261: potential -> Potential
Table 2: “Staff identified” -> “Staff-identified” in the caption. Also, include a statement in the caption that these play spaces are linked to Site 2. I do not believe that the information provided in this table is very informative. Consider removal, or use some examples to illustrate play spaces vs. play grounds in general.
L290: Superfluous “:”
Figure 8a: The thin axial lines on dark background are hard to read, especially when printed. As stated above, I am missing any implications from this part of the figure.
Figure 8c: I was confused that play spaces for 500-1000m were located within the inner circle; until I remembered that the authors looked at the network buffer to determine accessibility. This is somewhat confusing in particular here, but also misleading in the other illustrations using the circles.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
15 December 2022
Prof. Yao Fu
Ms. Becky Yue
Special Issue Editors and Assistant Editor, Child-Friendly Built Environment, Buildings
Dear Prof. Yao Fu and Ms. Becky Yue:
buildings-2092558: Refugee children’s access to play in meso-environments: A novel method using Space Syntax and GIS
We would like to thank the Reviewer 2 for the positive and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We appreciate the opportunity to revise and resubmit.
In our response document, I have italicised the comments from the Reviewer 2 and have placed our reply below each comment in red plain text. The text in the boxes identifies the relevant part in the manuscript that has been revised or added (modified text is marked up using the “Track Changes” function.
We hope that our manuscript is now suitable for publication in Buildings.
Thank you for considering our manuscript.
Yours sincerely,
Siqi Chen
on behalf of all authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The work is devoted to the problem of accessibility of play spaces for refugee children in meso-environments and its study using Space Syntax approach. The practical study was carried out on the example of several testbed environments in Berlin (Germany). The work is distinguished by the high practical relevance of the problem and its importance for the inclusion of refugee children in normal life in mentally extreme conditions for them. The work is well structured, the text is concentrated (not oversized) and easy to understand, the statements are logically justified and convincingly confirmed by reference sources. It should be especially noted the large number and high-quality of illustrative material - first of all, maps and diagrams. The references from are quite complete and representative.
The reviewer found only one possible mistyping:
213: math[emat]ically? (New term "mathically" looks hardly compatible with research agenda)
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
15 December 2022
Prof. Yao Fu
Ms. Becky Yue
Special Issue Editors and Assistant Editor, Child-Friendly Built Environment, Buildings
Dear Prof. Yao Fu and Ms. Becky Yue:
buildings-2092558: Refugee children’s access to play in meso-environments: A novel method using Space Syntax and GIS
We would like to thank the Reviewer 3 for the positive and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We appreciate the opportunity to revise and resubmit.
In our response document, I have italicised the comments from the Reviewer 3 and have placed our reply below each comment in red plain text. The text in the boxes identifies the relevant part in the manuscript that has been revised or added (modified text is marked up using the “Track Changes” function.
We hope that our manuscript is now suitable for publication in Buildings.
Thank you for considering our manuscript.
Yours sincerely,
Siqi Chen
on behalf of all authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Manuscript ID: buildings-2092558
Title: Refugee children’s access to play in meso-environments: A novel approach using Space Syntax and GIS
I appreciate all works done by Authors, the main suggestions has been implemented in all sections. All stages of presented study are clearly developed after corrections. Especially the section of Results is well presented, also Discussion became more deep what increased the scientific soundness of the study.
Summing up, I evaluate the study and its presentation high, and the manuscript can be published in its present form. Some last small English corrections in the process of final edition could increase the quality of the manuscript.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
18 December 2022
Prof. Yao Fu
Ms. Kelly Zhao
Special Issue Editors and Special Issue Editor, Child-Friendly Built Environment, Buildings
Dear Prof. Yao Fu and Ms. Kelly Zhao:
buildings-2092558: Refugee children’s access to play in meso-environments: A novel method using Space Syntax and GIS
We would like to thank the Reviewer 1 for the positive and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We appreciate the opportunity to revise and resubmit.
In our revised script, I have modified text is marked up using the “Track Changes” function. As the Reviewers suggestions, some last small English corrections in the process have been done to increase the quality of the manuscript.
We hope that our manuscript is now suitable for publication in Buildings.
Thank you for considering our manuscript.
Yours sincerely,
Siqi Chen
on behalf of all authors
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors revised many of the issues I raised. Their paper has gained quality and clarity. However, the authors basically agree to my issue that the whole Space Syntax angle is underused. Their main argument is that it can be further developed in future studies. The only finding in this regard is a statement in the discussion that formal playspaces were primarily linked to highly integrated road segments. Which basically translates to "Playgrounds are located at easily accesible locations" - no too surprising.
I understand that updating the analysis might be impossible now for reasons stated by the authors. At the very least, include a Strengths and Limitations section for Space Syntax in the discussion. Outline your arguments from your response to my review, as well as future directions that would allow actual insights into the role of playspace availability on refugee children.
Also, I suggest another careful revision for typos etc. See 4.4.2, l 325: ovell --> overall; l326: represneted --> represented. Such typos are detected by any standard spell checker.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
18 December 2022
Prof. Yao Fu
Ms. Kelly Zhao
Special Issue Editors, Child-Friendly Built Environment, Buildings
Dear Prof. Yao Fu and Ms. Kelly Zhao:
buildings-2092558: Refugee children’s access to play in meso-environments: A novel method using Space Syntax and GIS
We would like to thank the Reviewer 2 for the positive and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We appreciate the opportunity to revise and resubmit.
In our response document, I have italicised the comments from the Reviewer 2 and have placed our reply below each comment in red plain text. The text in the boxes identifies the relevant part in the manuscript that has been revised or added (modified text is marked up using the “Track Changes” function. As the Reviewers suggestions, some last small English corrections in the process have been done to increase the quality of the manuscript.
We hope that our manuscript is now suitable for publication in Buildings.
Thank you for considering our manuscript.
Yours sincerely,
Siqi Chen
on behalf of all authors
Comments from Reviewer #2
Also, I suggest another careful revision for typos etc. See 4.4.2, l 325: ovell --> overall; l326: represneted --> represented. Such typos are detected by any standard spell checker.
Thank you for this important suggestion. Please see our response below. In addition, some last small English corrections in the process have been done in the whole script to increase the quality of the manuscript.
|
(p.19, 4. Results and Comparison, 4.4.2. Comparison at overall levels) 4.4.2. Comparison at overall levels The numeric data of all findings are represented through a graphic comparison in Figure 9. Site VI had the most variety of active playspaces |
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
