Exploring Equity in City Planning for Children’s Nature Play

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study addresses a highly relevant and timely topic. It is well-structured, systematically analyzed, and offers valuable insights for child-friendly urban planning. Although there is still room for improvement in terms of theoretical depth and methodological rigor, these do not undermine the study’s core contributions and outcomes. I recommend accepting the paper after revisions addressing the following points:

1. Theoretical framework is clearly applied but somewhat limited in scope. The study adopts the Systems Change Framework as its analytical basis, which is logically sound and structurally coherent. However, it is recommended that the authors incorporate additional theoretical perspectives related to urban socio-spatial structures or environmental justice (e.g., Harvey’s theory of spatial justice or Soja’s Thirdspace) to enrich the conceptual dimensions of the research.
2. The definition of “equity” needs further clarification.
   While the paper identifies three conceptual frameworks for equity (as a lens, outcome, and process), the distinctions between them in practical implementation are at times ambiguous. The authors are encouraged to further elaborate on how each type of equity manifests in practice and support these interpretations with clearer theoretical justifications or relevant literature.
3. The description of the research methodology requires further standardization. Although the methodology section describes the use of interviews and document analysis in detail, it lacks sufficient explanation regarding sampling criteria and data saturation. More elaboration on the validity and representativeness of the selected cases would strengthen this section.
4. Insufficient theoretical integration of interview data. Numerous quotes from city officials are included throughout the paper, but they are largely presented as anecdotal evidence. It is suggested that the authors strengthen the theoretical linkage or provide interpretative analysis by connecting the interview findings to existing literature on environmental inequality or child development to enhance the credibility of the qualitative data.
5. Figures and tables could be optimized. While Figures 4 and 5 (strategy matrices) are information-rich, their visual design appears overly complex. It is recommended to simplify the graphics or provide clearer explanations of the symbols and legends within the main text to improve readability.
6. The discussion section could benefit from a broader international comparison. Although the study focuses on seven U.S. cities, the issues of equity and access to nature play are global urban challenges. A brief comparison with practices or challenges from other countries would enhance the international relevance and applicability of the paper.
7. The conclusion should emphasize policy implications more directly. The current conclusion section leans toward theoretical synthesis. It is recommended that the authors provide more actionable recommendations for urban policymakers, such as how to implement equity mapping or address power imbalances among stakeholders.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

See attachment

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After a careful and comprehensive revision by the author, the manuscript has significantly improved in terms of clarity, structure, and scientific rigor. I believe the current version adequately addresses the previous concerns and meets the standards of publication. Therefore, I recommend that the article be accepted in its present form.