Creating a ‘Full-Age Sharing’ Community: Analysing the Results of the Supply–Demand Matching of Sports Spaces for All Residents

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article addresses the assessment of the supply-demand matching of sports spaces for all residents. Here are some review comments for this manuscript:

 

Introduction

1.       It is recommended to clarify the relationship between the review and research contents. For example, the statement "The results showed that the eastern region ranked first in terms of the urban–rural scale, the degree of diversification of service modes, and the degree of openness of supply, followed by the central region, which was a spatially discrete distribution" needs further explanation regarding its relevance to the subsequent sections of the manuscript.

2.       The logical flow between sentences in the review needs to be improved for better coherence.

3.       Please discuss the relationship between Research Question 1 and Research Question 2. At present, they seem somewhat disconnected and abrupt.

 

Methods

4.       The classification of physical activity supply needs to be supported by a clear rationale.

5.       The calculation method for the Analysis of the Demand for Physical Activities for all Age Groups needs further discussion regarding its basis.

6.       Please provide justification for the reasonableness of the method used to calculate the demand analysis.

 

Results

7.       Data sources should be included in the Methods section, rather than in the Results section.

8.       The section on Identifying Supply Points and Fitness Demand Points in Community Open Spaces seems to describe a descriptive step in the analysis process and may not need to appear in this section.

9.       In Section 3.1.2, the specific model or analysis method used to derive the results should be clearly stated.

10.     The analysis results related to demand should also be described in detail.

11.     The logical connection between the spatial optimization section and the analysis results should be improved.

12.     The Discussion section should avoid mentioning Study Designs, as this is not relevant to this part of the manuscript.

13.     Please consider whether this manuscript contributes to Research Analysis Methods and how it enhances the existing literature.

 

 

Discussion

14.     In Section 4.3, the manuscript should include a comparison of its contributions with other studies in the field.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

15.     The language used throughout the manuscript requires improvement for clarity and fluency.

Author Response

Comment 1:It is recommended to clarify the relationship between the review and research contents. For example, the statement "The results showed that the eastern region ranked first in terms of the urban–rural scale, the degree of diversification of service modes, and the degree of openness of supply, followed by the central region, which was a spatially discrete distribution" needs further explanation regarding its relevance to the subsequent sections of the manuscript.

Response 1: 

The results showed that the supply of sports fields in east China ranked first in terms of the urban–rural scale, the degree of diversification of service modes and the degree of openness of supply, which means that high-density cities are considering more to expand sports fields to meet the growing public demand for exercise and fitness.

We agreed with your comment. We have adjusted the relevant sentences of line 93-98. We misrepresented this in the review, which was intended to make the point that cities in eastern China ranked first in the country in terms of the supply of sports fields.

 Comment 2: The logical flow between sentences in the review needs to be improved for better coherence.

Response 2: Thanks for your comments and we agreed that there may be some logical confusions in the review. We have adjusted some parts of the review. And we hope the revised manuscript could be acceptable for you.

Comment 3:  Please discuss the relationship between Research Question 1 and Research Question 2. At present, they seem somewhat disconnected and abrupt.

Response 3: As you concerned, we have revised parts of the review which may be confusing and seem irrelevant to the manuscript.

Comment 4: The classification of physical activity supply needs to be supported by a clear rationale.

Response 4: As you concerned, the classification of physical activity refers to the contents of National Fitness Guide, Indicators for the Construction of Urban Community Sports Facilities, Indicators for Children’s Outdoor Recreational Site and other documents (line 80-85). All data and classifications are organized and summarized by authors.

Comment 5:The calculation method for the Analysis of the Demand for Physical Activities for all Age Groups needs further discussion regarding its basis.

Response 5: With reference to the construction of 10-minute fitness circles and residents’ physical conditions, the distance of all age groups’ needs for fitness activities is further calculated respectively. This study takes average value of walking speed of each age group and calculates according to 0.6 m/s for the elderly, 1 m/s for the middle-aged, 1.3 m/s for the young, 1.2 m/s for teenagers, and 0.8 m/s for young children. The results show that the radius of the demand for activities is 360 m, 600 m, 780 m, 720 m, and 480 m, respectively.

Each age group’s demand for physical activity is categorized into types, time periods and activity distances. Considering the differences in physical condition and mobility of residents, the distance that can be reached in ten minutes on foot is calculated separately. The average value is calculated as 0.6m/s for the elderly, 1m/s for the middle-aged, 1.3m/s for the youth, 1.2m/s for teenagers and 0.8m/s for young children. We have added further discussion in Section 2.3.2.

Comments 6:  Please provide justification for the reasonableness of the method used to calculate the demand analysis.

Comment 6: As you concerned, all age groups’ demands for physical activities in the community are composed of the requirement for different types of activities under each time period. We added more explanation in Section 2.3.2. Due to geographic differences, the proportion of population activity varies within different communities, making it difficult to accurately fit a uniform and unchanging standard. Therefore, to determine the specific proportion in a certain community, it is necessary to research the behavioral patterns of physical activities of all age groups in that community, and then mathematically analyze the proportion of each type of activity in each time period.

Comment 7:  Data sources should be included in the Methods section, rather than in the Results section.

Response 7: We agreed with your comment and we realized the inadequacy and misinterpretation of this part. According to your suggestion, we have adjusted the heading of Section 3.1 and the data sources are indeed stated in the methodology.

Comment 8: The section on Identifying Supply Points and Fitness Demand Points in Community Open Spaces seems to describe a descriptive step in the analysis process and may not need to appear in this section.

Response 8: Physical fitness demand points are identified within the level of each demand unit, which sets each residential building as a basic unit. Supply and demand points of physical fitness and other hindering information, such as the information on community roads and the boundaries of residential units, are inputted into the ArcGIS database and form a map with the location of each point.

We sincerely appreciate the valuable comments and we have re-written and simplified the presentation. We have removed the descriptive step and modified the manuscript to show the results of the calculations by following the analyses above (line 389-399). 

Comment 9:  In Section 3.1.2, the specific model or analysis method used to derive the results should be clearly stated.

Response 9: We think this is an excellent suggestion. We mentioned the specific model in Section 2.2 and 3.1.1, but omitted it in 3.1.2. As suggested by the reviewer, we have added the Maximum Capacity Limitation Coverage Model in Section 3.1.2.

Comment 10: The analysis results related to demand should also be described in detail.

Response 10: We present the results of our analyses of demand and supply in the manuscript with figures. The types of demand activities are shown in Table 3 and further explanations are added here. In Table 3, we have collated all the types of activities that are daily carried out by residents, and calculated the bearable walking distances by different age group. The radius of demand of activities for the elderly, middle-aged, youth, teenagers, and children are 360m, 600m, 780m, 720m, and 480m, respectively. Thus, according to the age groups that use the demand in each time period, the shortest radius of demand for the trails, plazas, fitness equipment venues, playground equipment venues, basketball courts, table tennis table venues, and badminton courts are 360m, 360m, 360m, 480m, 600m, 360m, 360m.

Comment 11:  The logical connection between the spatial optimization section and the analysis results should be improved.

Response 11:  According to the calculation and matching results, the supply and demand of fitness trails, squares, and fitness equipment venues have been fully matched under all time periods, while there are mismatches in amusement facilities and venues, basketball courts, table tennis table courts, and badminton courts. The latter needs to be optimized in terms of time and space. Among them, the optimisation of spatial transformation can be carried out directly within the open space, and other sports activities can be carried out in an orderly manner in the area with excess supply. Time-use optimisation, on the other hand, involves controlling the maximum number of people that can be accommodated during peak hours, and encouraging the crowd to engage in other sporting activities through crowd diversion.

Comment 12: The Discussion section should avoid mentioning Study Designs, as this is not relevant to this part of the manuscript.

Response 12: This section is an overview and macro-analysis of the manuscript, making it clear that the study features the concept of all-age sharing, focuses on the concept of people-centeredness, and aims to improve the utilization of open space within communities. The heading Study Designs may indeed be inappropriate, and we have chosen to delete the heading and use the contents of section 4.1 as a general discussion of the study, leading to the specialized discussion below.

Comment 13: Please consider whether this manuscript contributes to Research Analysis Methods and how it enhances the existing literature.

Response 13: Compared to previous studies, we did not limit to total population and accessibility, but tried to refine the existing research from multiple perspectives. We categorized and discussed age groups, time periods and activity types. After clarifying amount of supply and demand, we analysed the relationship between the demand for physical activities of all-age residents and the supply of open space in each time period by Maximum Capacity Limitation Coverage Model, and initially formed a set of analysis system.

Comment 14:   In Section 4.3, the manuscript should include a comparison of its contributions with other studies in the field.

Response 14: We did make a horizontal comparison and this is where the innovation of this study lies. Like mentioned in Section 4.3, many studies in the field focus on suitability assessment and accessibility analysis, while this study analyses the matching relationship between demand and supply points under various time periods. We have modified the content to add more comparisons of this study's contribution with other fields.

Comment 15: The language used throughout the manuscript requires improvement for clarity and fluency.

Response 15: Thanks for your suggestion. This manuscript has been edited by Elsevier Language Editing Services, and the language certificate is attached in revision. And we have tried our best to polish the language and other details again. We hope the revised manuscript could be acceptable.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a rather technical paper that seeks to find ways to optimize the distribution and patterns of use of public open spaces for sports activities for all ages. The calculation of demand and supply is explained. In two case study neighborhoods the match between them is calculated and suggestions are made for improving the use of existing facilities, as well as providing new facilities within existing spaces.

While the method seems logical and reasonable in its own right, I feel that it bears a danger which accompanies all standards of Public Open Space allocation - it may result in over provision of public space, and particularly in dense urban areas lead to unrealistic goals. In other cities it may hinder the achievement of high densities that are necessary for a lively urban environment.

Here are just a sample of questions that I believe should be considered:

Why isn't street space considered as a potential area for some of sports activities? People going for a walk actually prefer to use neighborhood streets than neighborhood parks. Street spaces can also contain many of the small areas necessary for some of the activities.

What about the growing trend of people going to private gyms to work out?

What about sports like parcour and climbing that in some cases have come about as a result of wish for activity in harsh urban surroundings?

In the end, even the authors conclude that the optimization of sports facilities should be done with careful study of the community and its use patterns - these patterns change in time. How often should one try to optimize the supply and demand curves?

The paper makes a great contribution with regard to calculating the demand and supply - but from there the planning process should not be technical - but particpative allowing the people in the community to have a say what are the preferred uses for them - and the tradeoffs with other aspects of public space that they may have.

How come the sports facilities usually associated with schools were not considered as part of the supply? Or have they?

Two minor comments:

The explanation on matching the supply and demand is not very clear - perhaps reference could be made to the illustrations. It was also not clear to me what is the meaning of covered open spaces. Does it mean under roof, or those designated for sports?

In Table5 the heading for the fourth column from the left should be: Ratio of Coverage.

Author Response

Comments 1: Why isn't street space considered as a potential area for some of sports activities? People going for a walk actually prefer to use neighborhood streets than neighborhood parks. Street spaces can also contain many of the small areas necessary for some of the activities.

Response 1:Thank you for your suggestion. We agreed with your point but we also have other considerations. Compared to street space, community space is in urgent need of optimization. On the one hand, community space resources have a high idle rate due to underutilization; on the other hand, some old or high-density urban communities have limited internal space, making it difficult for residents to carry out daily activities. So, we mainly focused on the analysis of community open spaces.

Comments 2: What about the growing trend of people going to private gyms to work out?

Response 2: The reasons why people choose to go to private gyms are diverse, such as the improvement of living standards, people's rising concern for health, aesthetic changes and so on. However, it cannot be ignored that there are still thresholds for going to gyms, such as charges, age, intensity of exercise, etc., so it is equally important to carry out daily fitness exercises.

Comments 3: What about sports like parcour and climbing that in some cases have come about as a result of wish for activity in harsh urban surroundings?

Response 3: Sports like parkour and climbing require professional venues and instruction, which may lead to some safety issue if introduced hastily in city or communities. Therefore, we believe that basic sports activities such as running, basketball, table tennis, etc. should remain the main focus. These sports are more common and popular activities that people would carry out in daily life.

Comments 4: In the end, even the authors conclude that the optimization of sports facilities should be done with careful study of the community and its use patterns - these patterns change in time. How often should one try to optimize the supply and demand curves?

Response 4: Thanks for your valuable feedback. We believe that the community has a relatively stable population, and therefore the demand for physical activities tends to be stable. However, fitness equipment and outdoor sports fields need to be updated regularly for safety reason. For example, the updating cycle of fitness equipment is 1 to 3 years, and the overhaul of sports fields is 5 to 10 years. Therefore, we believe that we can make reference to these figures and tentatively adopt a 5-year cycle to carry out regular renewal.

Comments 5: The paper makes a great contribution with regard to calculating the demand and supply - but from there the planning process should not be technical - but particpative allowing the people in the community to have a say what are the preferred uses for them - and the tradeoffs with other aspects of public space that they may have.

Response 5: We agreed with your comments. We conducted people-centered study from a more macro perspective and obtained data on residents' activities through observation and statistics, but communication with residents is inadequate. Research methods such as questionnaires and scales will be included in future studies to allow residents to have a say and to make the study more relevant.

Comments 6: How come the sports facilities usually associated with schools were not considered as part of the supply? Or have they? 

Response 6:  As you concerned, compared with communities and the rest of the urban open space, schools have sports halls, outdoor activity venues and supporting facilities, which are more professional, sufficient in number. Moreover, they are expanding the carrying capacity and are open to the society on the basis of meeting the daily needs of teachers and students. In addition, the amount of students' sports activities in schools is guaranteed, and this study focuses on improving the level of activity in people's daily lives, so community open space and the configuration of sports facilities in communities are the primary objectives of the study.

 Comments 7: The explanation on matching the supply and demand is not very clear - perhaps reference could be made to the illustrations. It was also not clear to me what is the meaning of covered open spaces. Does it mean under roof, or those designated for sports? 

Response 7: We studied the statements in the article carefully and believed that there may have been a misunderstanding. ‘Covered open space’ refers to the area that is covered by fitness facilities or activity space, which can provide residents within this area with the activity venues they need, and corresponds to the points that have mismatch between supply and demand.

Comments 8: In Table5 the heading for the fourth column from the left should be: Ratio of Coverage.

Response 8: We sincerely thank you for careful reading. As suggested by the reviewer, we have corrected the ‘radio’ into ‘ratio’. Thanks for your correction.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Here are my comments about the manuscript titled " Creating ‘Full-Age Sharing’ Community: Assessment of the Supply-Demand Matching of Sports Spaces for All Residents".

 

(1)   Part Abstract - more fresh findings can be given in this part.

(2)   The reason for selecting these two sample areas can be given.

(3)   The name of subtitle should be modified, e.g., analysing results of?

(4)   There are many figures in this manuscript, and some figures can be integrated into a figure.

(5)   English language should be improved.

 

Overall, the authors have done a solid work.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

Comments 1: Part Abstract - more fresh findings can be given in this part.

Response 1: Thanks for your valuable suggestion. We proposed to construct a method for matching and optimising in the abstract, and we focused on empirical research and methodology construction. Descriptive steps in abstract may be too much, so we also modified it according to the reviewers' comments to highlight the innovation and significance of this study more.

Comments 2: The reason for selecting these two sample areas can be given.

Response 2: As you concerned, we mentioned the reason for selecting these two sample areas in manuscript in Section 2.1 and Section 4. We chose two communities in Nanjing that are densely populated, well-infrastructured, spatially diverse and rich in sports demand. Two samples are typical high-density, old communities with limited space and diverse activity requirements, which are in urgent need of optimization.

Comments 3: The name of subtitle should be modified, e.g., analysing results of?

Response 3: We sincerely appreciate your valuable suggestion and we have modified the subtitle according to the reviewer’s suggestion.

 Comments 4: There are many figures in this manuscript, and some figures can be integrated into a figure.

Response 4: Thanks for your suggestion. We also realize that there are many figures in the manuscript, but as we chose 11 points for assessment, each point was analyzed in great detail. Combining figures may have resulted in an inability to present the results clearly. Therefore, we choose to show them one by one, and we will find a more appropriate way of presentation in future studies.

Comments 5:  English language should be improved.

Response 5: Thanks for your suggestion. This manuscript has been edited by Elsevier Language Editing Services, and the language certificate is attached in revision. And we have tried our best to polish the language and other details again. We hope the revised manuscript could be acceptable.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All the comments have been addressed.

Author Response

Comments 1: All the comments have been addressed.

Response 1: We would like to thank you for your efforts in reviewing our manuscript and providing many helpful comments and suggestions, which will all prove valuable in guiding our research in the future. We are also pleased to be able to address all the comments.