Multi-Scale Analysis of Urban Greenspace Exposure and Equality: Insights from a Population-Enhanced Vegetation Index (EVI)-Weighted Model in the West Side Straits Urban Agglomeration

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This research have undertaken the significant challenge of accurately quantifying greenspace exposure and evaluating its distributional equality within the urban agglomeration of the West Side of the Straits in China. Such analyses are essential for guiding equitable urban planning and for addressing disparities in access to green spaces, especially in the context of rapidly developing countries. The alignment of sustainable development with well-crafted policies is indeed a critical factor in determining societal well-being.

Overall, the manuscript makes a positive impression. However, several minor errors noted by the reviewer detract from the publication's quality. These amendments do not impact the calculations but pertain primarily to illustrations, punctuation, and sentence length. The suggested revisions are as follows:

(1)   It is recommended that a schematic map of the study area be included to enhance readers' understanding of the region under investigation.

(2)   Figure 7 uses a monochromatic gradient to represent the intensity of green space exposure. This representation may not be optimally intuitive at the county level. It is suggested that a color scheme with greater contrast be employed to improve the clarity of the visualization.

(3)   The use of the semicolon ";" on pages 3, 5, and 22 is excessive in sentences that are overly long. It is advisable to break up long sentences into separate paragraphs or shorter sentences to improve comprehensibility.

(4)   Lines 178 and 199, there appears to be a typographical error with the word “Greenspce”. Please correct this to “Greenspace”. Line 112, “taked”?

(5)   The chapter number assigned to the Conclusions section is incorrect.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments attacched

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English language must to be improved.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Your paper presents valuable ideas, and the research design is well-structured. The findings are both interesting and hold significant potential for urban planners. However, some areas require improvement:

a) Methodology: The description in Section 2 needs more detail to ensure the research can be fully reproduced.

b) Discussion: The discussion section does not adequately address many of the results presented earlier. Please align these sections to ensure coherence.

Additionally, detailed comments are provided in the attached PDF file. The reference list should be expanded to include studies that discuss the advantages of EVI over other VI methods for assessing green area quality, within the introduction. Furthermore, the discussion section would benefit from additional references to relevant research on VI, buffer zones, scales, etc. These references would help highlight the scientific contributions of your paper and provide a basis for comparing your findings with existing studies.

Best regards

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The manuscript shows promise, but some important issues from the previous review remain insufficiently addressed. While you have made some revisions, these changes are largely superficial and do not fully address the key concerns raised. There seems to be some misunderstanding regarding the purpose and interpretation of vegetation indices, which has led to incomplete methodology descriptions and conclusions that may not be fully supported.

Although certain details were provided in response to my comments, they were not fully incorporated into the manuscript, and some methodological aspects remain unclear, making the procedure challenging to replicate. Additionally, while you have included new literature, it appears that the key distinctions between your work and other studies were not fully understood, limiting the effectiveness of the revisions and the application of vegetation indices in a social context.

I encourage you to revisit the initial feedback carefully and implement the critical revisions suggested. With these improvements, the manuscript will be much closer to readiness for publication.

Kind regards,

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx