Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper presentation is well structured with all needed elements. It is interesting to read, but sometimes boring due to many mathematical and statistical data. By that, readers lose the concentration. Quality of presentation could be improved by presenting the findings more interesting for the target group. Overall impression - very serious work, so it should be published.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study employs kernel density analysis, the Gaussian two-step floating catchment area method, the analytic hierarchy process, and bivariate spatial autocorrelation to analyze the current spatial distribution of public service facilities adopting the 15-minute community framework in Chengdu. By evaluating the alignment between public service provision and population demand, the research aims to offer recommendations for optimizing essential service infrastructure. The study makes some contributions to the literature. While the content and overall idea of the paper may garner the interest of many readers, I found that the paper could improve significantly by clarifying major and minor details throughout the paper.

  1. The first, second, and third paragraphs of the introduction convey the same message: that the planning of 15-minute living zones can effectively enhance people's quality of life. It is recommended to consolidate these three paragraphs into a single, concise one.

  2. The introduction frequently discusses the application of 15-minute living zone planning in first-tier cities like Beijing and Shanghai but fails to mention Chengdu, the focus of this study. The author should include the reasons for choosing Chengdu as the research area and provide an overview of Chengdu's efforts in implementing 15-minute living zone planning. Additional context is recommended.

  3. No highlights are included in Introduction. It is hard to find something significant in your work, highlight the significance and novelty of your findings.

  4. The paper primarily focuses on the quantity of public facilities in areas such as living, healthcare, education, public transit, and entertainment. Shouldn't the scale of these public facilities also be considered in the model?

5. Section 4.1 of the discussion does not delve into the influencing factors affecting the spatial distribution of public service facilities; it simply outlines the current accessibility status. It is advisable to revisit the discussion on these influencing factors and elaborate on the considerations from different perspectives.

6. What is the heterogeneity of the model?

7. Do not summarize your work, present clear conclusions (confirmation/denial of your contribution).

8. It is suggested that the empirical findings of this paper should not stay on the surface of the results. The empirical results of this paper should be verified by the cases of other areas in reality.

9. It is recommended to incorporate countermeasures and suggestions based on the research conclusions of this paper. This addition will further enhance the research value of the paper by providing practical recommendations and actionable steps for addressing the identified issues. By including specific strategies and suggestions, the paper will offer valuable insights to readers and contribute to the practical application of the research findings.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study analyses the spatial distribution of public service facilities in Chengdu according to the 15-minute community model. Using methods such as kernel density analysis and the Gaussian two-step floating catchment area method, it reveals significant spatial heterogeneity in the distribution and accessibility of facilities. The research reveals a mismatch between supply and demand, and suggests optimising it by focusing on the areas of highest demand, enhancing neighbourhood centre complexes and involving public participation in planning. The aim is to improve the accessibility of facilities and the quality of urban life in Chengdu.

is a good study and its conclusions are robust, however, some basic elements need to be improved.

1. The diagramming of the maps, which is a very relevant element in the research, should be larger and more comparable, in order to be more comprehensible for the readers. 

The method is relevant and needs to present the scope (quantitative) more explicitly from the abstract and introduction.

3. the conclusions can be more extensive and therefore more robust about the main findings and limitations. 

4.- along these lines, the analysis of demand is quantitative and not perceptive, which should be made explicit.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf