Review Reports - The Role of Campus Green Space for Residents: Based on Supply–Demand of Recreation Services

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research is interesting in the applied context, is it possible to transfer the experience to other cases? other countries?

The methodology between objectives and searches continues to be a problem, the question of hypotheses, cause of study and findings is not clear.

The document is well written and solid.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Many thanks to the author for his research work. After careful reading, I think the research method and topic of this paper are not suitable. The topic selection is not innovative. The whole research process was too simple to meet the requirements for publication. Therefore, I do not recommend publishing this paper.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you very much for the opportunity to review the paper “The Role of campus Green Space for Residents: Based on Supply-demand of Recreation Services”. The paper presents an issue on the extent to which campus green space complements the supply and demand for public green space.

Below are some comments on the paper.

Here are some comments on the work.

1 Please replace the key words so that the words are not repeated with the title of the work.

2 Introduction - “ Urban green space can provide cultural services such as education, cultural heritage, 24 social relations, aesthetics, health, entertainment, and outdoor recreation for urban residents, 25 which is important for human well-being”, yes this is true but very often ecolgical education is forgotten, which is a very important part of green spaces. Please complete the inromation. np. https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4907/12/8/993

3. Methodology - Please leave a gap between the tables 2-3 or maybe add color in the first row of the tables because they are unreadable, they connect to each other.

4. Results are clearly and correctly presented.

5. The discussion is very poor. The paper lacks a comparison between the results obtained and the results of other authors, from other papers.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I see a lot of effort on the part of the author, but I don't think it meets the criteria for publication. From the innovation of the topic selection to the applicability of the method, I think there are problems. The final conclusion is not based on scientific data, the conclusion is obvious. Sorry, I may not be able to pass.

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

Thank you for your decision and constructive comments on my manuscript. We have carefully considered your suggestion and make some changes. We have tried our best to improve and made some changes in the manuscript.

The green part that has been revised according to your comments. We have added perceived accessibility analysis based on existing data. Then we compared its differences between campus closed and reopened. Based on these, the results were supplemented, the discussion and conclusions were also enhanced. Revision notes are given as follows:

Abstract

We have added the method, results and conclusions of perceived accessibility analysis in line 12 and line 14 - 19.

Introduction

In order to emphasize the importance of campus green space openness for city, we have added research background on accessibility of gated communities which have similar management and issues of fairness in public facilities (line 70 - 80).

Method

We have added the details of perceived accessibility analysis and perceived accessibility comparison between campus closed and reopened in line 114 - 124.

Results

We have added the differences of perceived accessibility of PGSs before and after campus reopened in line 203 - 218 and figure 3.

4. Discussion

We have explained the reason why the perceived accessibility of PGSs was significantly increased in the central part of the city but not suburban area, also the relation between our findings and other studies (line 312 - 335, section 4.1).

We also have added recommendations based on the founds of the perceived accessibility of PGSs (line 400-405, section 4.3).

Conclusions

We have summarized the findings of the perceived accessibility of PGSs (line 442 - 446). Based on these, we have added the expectation for future collage management (line 461-463).