Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper overall is interesting as it suggests a comprehensive and timely methodological approach, and the visual representation (axial maps) is of good quality. The literature review can be enriched with some examples of other case studies where the Space Syntax methodology has also been applied, focusing on cases which this has been done using a combination of Space Syntax and GIS technology (e.g. see https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877042816303925), as it is done in the present paper. This way, the authors would provide the reader with some additional information in order to explore potential similarities and differences with cases with comparable characteristics worldwide. Possibly a separate section needs to be added for this purpose, after the Introduction, or it can follow as a “state-of-the-art” section, after section 2, where the research methodology is described.

Author Response

Dear Review teacher

Thank you very much for your valuable comments on the paper, which are highly conducive to further enhancing the depth of the article. The paper has been revised according to your comments, and my replies are detailed as follows. If there are more suggestions for revision or any unclear expression, please kindly notify me.

1. There is indeed little discussion about GIS and space syntax in the introduction part of this paper. We have added relevant supplement in this paper.
2. Based on your opinions, we have slightly revised the content of this paper, and moved the discussion on GIS and space syntax originally in the Abstract into the section of Research Methodology, that is, related research cases on the combination of GIS and space syntax have been added in the section of "2.4 The Combination of GIS and Space Syntax", and made a detailed explanation.
3. We have improved the English language and style of this manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is a fairly straightforward presentation of research question, methodology and findings.  I am unable to change the statistical analysis that is offered but the paper makes a clear argument for bridging analyses of park accessibility with those of street networks, i.e. space syntax.  The findings are not necessarily surprising, showing higher park accessibility by both measures in some parts of Fuzhou City than in others. 

As the authors acknowledge, however, the usefulness of these findings may be limited by the fact that they don't consider the contents of the parks, the surrounding environments, or the preferences of residents.  However, from a purely structural-analytic point of view the paper seems to provide some valuable tools for planners seeking to optimize park accessibility and enhance social equity.

 

Author Response

Dear Review teacher:

    The paper has been revised according to your comments, and my replies are detailed as follows. If there are more suggestions for revision or any unclear expression, please kindly notify me.

1. Thank you very much for your review and comments on the paper's shortcomings. It is of great help to us in our future research. This study is the first part of our long-term research on this topic,; he basic research lays the foundation for future research. In the subsequent research, we will take social factors and natural factors into consideration to further improve the depth of the study.
2. We have improved the English language and style of this manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf