Equity Study on Urban Park Accessibility Based on Improved 2SFCA Method in Zhengzhou, China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper presents a strong research concept, process and result. In addition, the work is well presented in the writing, figures and data. I recommend the paper for publishing without reservation.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer, thank you very much for your positive evaluation. English language check done.
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
First of all, I would like to congratulate you on your innovative approach to the study of the relationship between urban population and public spaces.
The paper is suitable for publication with the following indications:
1. It would be interesting to modify the cartography so that it has a better quality. It is suggested to enlarge it to show the relationship between population density and availability of public space.
2. It is recommended to cite the following work on accessibility to public spaces in the state of the art: https://reunido.uniovi.es/index.php/RCG/article/view/16548
https://www.wiley.com/en-us/The+Production+of+Space-p-9780631181774
Yours sincerely.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Please find the answers below:
- All graphic quality has been improved, some enlarged to better illustrate the content. Additionally, we prepared the figures at original resolution for editor use.
- The recommended and helpful book related to our work is cited
Thank you very much for your positive evaluation.
Reviewer 3 Report
I haven't noticed any mistakes or incosistences in the paper. It is a scientific paper suitble for publication in Land.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Thank you very much fpor your positive evaluation.
Yours sincerely
Reviewer 4 Report
There are several studies on the quality of the cities, on green spaces/parks within cities, walkable cities/neighborhoods, livable cities/neighborhoods and thus, this paper deals with a current topics.
A few remarks:
- on 2.2 Measuring access to park, on costs - in many parts of the world there is free public transportation for elders&children (depending on age); in specific days the public transp. is free in order to reduce congestions and pollution.
- line 338 to 340 - you should explain why low accessibility occurs in these specific areas.
- line 341 to 342 - more information on the relation between the main railway line, the development of the city, the presence of parks, accessibility and eventually, how the situation ca be improved.
- line 360 to 365 - you identify o region as HMM on line 361 only to say on line 365 that "the supply of total park size is relatively not high" - maybe I'm reading it wrong ...
- on solutions (page 13) - maybe you should add better connections over the railroad axes to improve accessibility.
This study is intended for specialists.
The study can be a useful tool to target underserved neighborhoods, however, it doesn't take into account other means of transportation when assessing accessibility. They inform the readers they don't consider public transportation and personal cars, but there are other means of transportation (more and more appreciated), specifically bicycles, skates, etc. that participate in the walkable concept.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Please find the answers below:
Travel cost in this study highlights time cost rather than distance cost, and the price cost is not considered here.
- line 345 to 348 – We explain the reason for low accessibility occurs in specific areas is that parks are lacking and far from large and high-quality parks.
- line 348 to 353 - The relation between the main railway line, the development of the city, the presence of parks, and the low accessibility of the area is analyzed.
- line 372 to 377 – HMM was identified as having the highest total park quality index, while the supply of total park size is relatively not high, so the accessibility level is moderate.
We add to the solution that better connections over the railway axes are necessary to improve accessibility.
Other travel modes in the walkable concept are proposed for future studies according to specific urban situations.
Regarding additional adjustments:
The title and key words are improved.
We substitute “public parks” for “urban parks”, as urban parks are generally considered to be public.
Figure 4 is changed based on Baidu Maps Navigation which provides this study with API service although it is not in English.
Discussion part is improved.
We add one more table to better explain the factors involved in clustering.
Some mistakes have been proofreaded and corrected.
Thank you very much for your carefully revie and positive evaluation.
With best regards
