Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue

Article Menu

Share Help Cite Discuss in SciProfiles

Open AccessArticle

Peer-Review Record

Assessing Travel-Time Accessibility to Urban Green Spaces in Car-Dependent Cities: Evidence from Erbil and Sulaimaniyah, Kurdistan Region of Iraq

Land 2025, 14(9), 1886; https://doi.org/10.3390/land14091886

by Yaseen N. Hassan^1,2,*

, Hawzheen A. Mohammed³, Mahmoud Abuhayya⁴ and Sándor Jombach¹

Reviewer 1: Anonymous

Reviewer 2:

Roberto Battistini

Reviewer 3:

Juan Luis Rivas Navarro

Reviewer 4: Anonymous

Land 2025, 14(9), 1886; https://doi.org/10.3390/land14091886

Submission received: 1 July 2025 / Revised: 27 August 2025 / Accepted: 5 September 2025 / Published: 15 September 2025

(This article belongs to the Section Urban Contexts and Urban-Rural Interactions)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study aims to evaluate car-based accessibility to large urban green spaces in two cities in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq. The authors demonstrate strengths in applying geospatial tools such as OpenRouteService and NDVI-based vegetation analysis. The manuscript presents a technically sound analysis of car-based accessibility, which relates to urban sustainability and engages with land-related themes; therefore, I believe it fits within the scope of Land. However, in my view, the motivation and conceptual grounding of the study are insufficiently developed in the context of contemporary urban sustainability.

The central motivation of this study is that car-based accessibility needs to be better understood in car-dependent cities. It is not convincing. It does not sufficiently engage with existing urban planning or sustainability literature, especially in relation to global decarbonisation goals, the 15-minute city concept, or transit-oriented development. The study implicitly legitimises car dependence, rather than exploring possible alternatives or transitions. This raises concerns about the study's normative stance: is the aim to adapt to car dependence or to challenge it? In my view, the paper risks naturalising what should instead be critically examined, potentially reinforcing unsustainable mobility patterns.

While "15-minute access" is mentioned, the manuscript does not engage with the principles or contradictions of applying this model in car-oriented contexts. The concept of the "15-minute city" (Moreno et al., 2021) is founded on non-motorised transport and aims to promote compact, mixed-use, walkable, and equitable neighbourhoods. However, in this study, it is treated merely as a technical threshold, overlooking its normative ambition. As a result, car-based 15-minute access is conflated with the broader ideals of proximity-based urbanism.

The core methodological assumption is that car-based accessibility metrics reflect the experience of the general population. In other words, it implicitly assumes that all urban residents have equal access to private vehicles and assesses green space accessibility accordingly. However, car ownership is highly unequal. The uneven distribution of vehicles across geography, gender, age, and income groups undermines the robustness of the findings and raises important questions about the study's claim to measure equity.

Lines 115–118: the manuscript suggests that car travel may be a more equitable option (Xu et al., 2017). I find this claim difficult to support. In fact, according to Xu et al. (2017), the hierarchical disparities between motorised and non-motorised access to green spaces highlight serious concerns about systematic exclusion and social inequity.

Author Response

The following are the comments, suggestions, questions, and requirements from the first reviewer, along with potential answers, clarifications, and manuscript developments.

Comment 1

The central motivation of this study is that car-based accessibility needs to be better understood in car-dependent cities. It is not convincing. It does not sufficiently engage with existing urban planning or sustainability literature, especially in relation to global decarbonisation goals, the 15-minute city concept, or transit-oriented development. The study implicitly legitimises car dependence, rather than exploring possible alternatives or transitions. This raises concerns about the study's normative stance: is the aim to adapt to car dependence or to challenge it? In my view, the paper risks naturalising what should instead be critically examined, potentially reinforcing unsustainable mobility patterns.

Answer 1

Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment and have therefore enhanced the discussion on the importance of critically engaging with the sustainability discourse around car dependence. In response, we have revised the manuscript to explicitly acknowledge the unsustainability of car-based mobility and its associated environmental impacts. In contrast, we have also provided sources highlighting the necessity of car use in certain cases. Please see lines 135–160 in the revised version.

Comment 2

While "15-minute access" is mentioned, the manuscript does not engage with the principles or contradictions of applying this model in car-oriented contexts. The concept of the "15-minute city" (Moreno et al., 2021) is founded on non-motorised transport and aims to promote compact, mixed-use, walkable, and equitable neighbourhoods. However, in this study, it is treated merely as a technical threshold, overlooking its normative ambition. As a result, car-based 15-minute access is conflated with the broader ideals of proximity-based urbanism.

Answer 2

Thank you for this observation. I agree with your point. In the manuscript, I originally referred to the “15-minute city” concept solely in relation to walkability. Based on a previous study (not the current one), I also noted inequities in walkable access to UGS and LUGS, with fewer than 10% of residents in the study cities able to reach LUGS on foot. The current paper focuses instead on LUGS accessibility by car or taxi. To avoid conflating the “15-minute city” framework—rooted in non-motorised transport, with car-based accessibility, and to prevent potential misinterpretation, I have removed the term “15-minute city” from the manuscript.

Comment 3

We acknowledge the reviewer’s concern regarding unequal car ownership. Unfortunately, disaggregated data on car ownership by gender or other sociodemographic factors are not available for the study area. However, existing statistics indicate that the total number of cars is roughly half the adult population (approximately one car per two adults), and the average household size is about 4.6 people. This suggests that many households have access to a private vehicle. For those without a car, taxis and assistance from relatives or neighbors are commonly used to visit urban green spaces. Nevertheless, we recognize that these alternatives may not be equally accessible to all population groups, and this represents a limitation of the study; with more detailed data, the interpretation of equity-related findings could be refined.

Answer 3

We acknowledge the reviewer’s concern regarding unequal car ownership. Unfortunately, disaggregated data on car ownership by gender or other sociodemographic factors are not available for the study area. However, existing statistics indicate that the total number of cars is roughly half the adult population (approximately one car per two adults), with an average household size of about 4.6 people. This suggests that many households have access to a private vehicle. For those without a car, taxis and assistance from relatives or neighbours are commonly used to visit urban green spaces. Nevertheless, we recognise that these alternatives are not equally accessible to all population groups. This represents a limitation of the study, and with more detailed data, the equity-related findings could be refined. Please see lines 117–127 in the revised version.

Comment 4

Lines 115–118: the manuscript suggests that car travel may be a more equitable option (Xu et al., 2017). I find this claim difficult to support. In fact, according to Xu et al. (2017), the hierarchical disparities between motorised and non-motorised access to green spaces highlight serious concerns about systematic exclusion and social inequity.

Answer 4

Thank you very much for your valuable comment. We appreciate your insightful observation regarding the equity of car travel access. In response, we have revised the paragraph to more accurately reflect the findings of previous studies and the source is removed. The revised text clarifies that, while car accessibility may provide broader overall access compared to public transport, this does not mean it is a fully equitable option. Please see lines 135–160 in the revised version

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study evaluates car-based accessibility to Large Urban Green (LUGS) in Sulaimaniyah and Erbil urban area. It represents an interesting scientific work on a very complex issue as the evaluation of level of accessibility.

Some suggestion:

in Literature analysis section is considerable to have mentioned Hansen original seminal work. I suggest to integrate also citation on some Moshe Ben Akiva studies on accessbility, measured as a socio-economic driver also.
Fig. 5 and fig 6, in which are showed isochrones, it should be appropriate to integrate also position of access-portal, main transportation nodes and any territorial key-point where accessibility could find a point of reference.
In Results, if available, should be interesting a gender analysis. There should be some difference in accessibility between male and female? in example there is an interesting study about gender exclusion in Islamabad area and Lahore (https://www.globalscientificjournal.com/researchpaper/Gender_Disparity_in_Urban_Transport_in_Pakistan_a_case_study_of_Lahore.pdf, or Muhammad Hamza Baig, Irfan Ahmad Rana, Abdul Waheed, An index-based approach for understanding gender preferences in active commuting: A case study of Islamabad, Pakistan, Case Studies on Transport Policy,
Volume 9, Issue 2,2021, Pages 600-607,)
In Conclusion it should be appreciate a short focus on next-to-be development of the research. I.e. the possibility to scale the study to sustainable mobility, as active mobility (walking or cycling)

Author Response

The following are the comments, suggestions, questions, and requirements from the first reviewer, along with potential answers, clarifications, and manuscript developments.

Comment 1

in Literature analysis section is considerable to have mentioned Hansen original seminal work. I suggest to integrate also citation on some Moshe Ben Akiva studies on accessibility, measured as a socio-economic driver also.

Answer 1

Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment, the paragraph enhanced. Please see lines 63–68 in the revised version.

Comment 2

Fig. 5 and fig 6, in which are showed isochrones, it should be appropriate to integrate also position of access-portal, main transportation nodes and any territorial key-point where accessibility could find a point of reference.

Answer 2

Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. The Figures have been enhanced by another figures.

Comment 3

In Results, if available, should be interesting a gender analysis. There should be some difference in accessibility between male and female? in example there is an interesting study about gender exclusion in Islamabad area and Lahore (https://www.globalscientificjournal.com/researchpaper/Gender_Disparity_in_Urban_Transport_in_Pakistan_a_case_study_of_Lahore.pdf, or Muhammad Hamza Baig, Irfan Ahmad Rana, Abdul Waheed, An index-based approach for understanding gender preferences in active commuting: A case study of Islamabad, Pakistan, Case Studies on Transport Policy,
Volume 9, Issue 2,2021, Pages 600-607,)

Answer 3

Thank you for pointing this out. This research does not specifically examine car accessibility by gender, as disaggregated gender-based data are not available for the study area. We acknowledge this as a limitation of the paper. Please see lines 124-127 and 632-635 in the revised version.

Comment 4

In Conclusion it should be appreciate a short focus on next-to-be development of the research. I.e. the possibility to scale the study to sustainable mobility, as active mobility (walking or cycling)

Answer 4

Thank you for pointing this out. We agree and have added a note suggesting car ownership and gender-specific analysis as directions for future study. Please see lines 632-635 in the revised version.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Title

Abstract

Initially, the need to select two rapidly growing cities that are dependent on cars is striking. Why only two, and why these two? Justification is needed to help guide the research.

I believe that the abstract does not need such detailed numerical or specific conclusions and should stick to advancing general conclusions that can be expected in the article. In line 32, it is not clear what CA means. I think it would be better if the abstract were concentrated in a single paragraph, rather than structured in three.

Keywords

Keywords need to be rethought. They need to be ordered according to their centrality and level of importance to the research. Keywords should be agreed-upon disciplinary concepts addressed in the article, rather than overly specific or even anecdotal concepts of minor importance.

1. Introduction

In this section, the concept of urban green spaces should be developed further, especially if such a specific distinction is made between the scales of green spaces.

If the article refers to large public spaces, a specific approach to this subject should be developed, considering the network dimension of public space as a mitigating factor in situations where there is a lack of accessibility to larger green spaces.

In this section, the concept of accessibility should be developed further, especially if the focus is going to be on accessibility by private vehicle, motivating and justifying this particular approach; this is regardless of whether there is a specific section in later sections of the article that develops it further.

In general, section 1. Introduction is too long and contains a mixture of introductory questions and explanations and arguments that belong in a more theoretical section connecting the research with the key concepts discussed in the current state of the art or the disciplines involved in these topics. It is recommended that a standard Introduction be written to present the research and the text.

The following elements should be placed in this section: the main motivations for the research, the problem to be addressed, and the research objectives, as well as an explanation of the structure of the document and a preview of the main results and conclusions that will be read later.

Much of the text currently in the Introduction would form part of this section 2 on Literature, but it would have the necessary space to be well developed, better conceptualizing the research.

Similarly, the case study should be presented in general terms in the Introduction, with the specific content necessary to justify its selection. However, it is recommended that a specific section be created on the selected cities, their methodological rationale, and their context, which should be linked to the Methodology section.

Finally, in this section in its current form, it is recommended to avoid overly general references to other contexts and to focus on the issues raised by the case study or case studies and their specific context, with references that are, if possible, similar or comparable to the cities and situations observed.

2. Materials and Methods

There is no justification for the case studies addressed. The cities in the region should be better contextualized, and an explanation or justification should be provided as to why these two cities were specifically chosen for the study.

Beyond this justification, it is essential to provide a more comprehensive explanation and description of the selected cities from a multidimensional perspective: urban form, urban centrality, population and residential fabrics, major land uses, mobility infrastructure, and, above all, public or green space systems and the location of the large urban green spaces analyzed.

On the other hand, the green spaces themselves must also be presented in order to understand the case study in terms of “objects of study.” This description should be cartographic, in terms of surface data and a minimum analysis of its spatial structure: contents, accesses, general shape, and surrounding fabrics or local urban situation.

Figure 1 is a valuable contribution, but it needs to be better justified and described, and it should be larger so that it can be read correctly. It is necessary to understand how this methodology relates to other methodologies used in previous reference studies and what is original in the methodology and what, however, is reused from other studies or previous references by different authors or by the authors of the article themselves.

Similarly, Figure 2 is inadequate in terms of size, definition, and legibility.

The study does not appear to consider the need for parking. Parking conditions may distort the results, as this need seems to have been overlooked and only the driving distances required to reach the main entrances to the green spaces analyzed are being evaluated. Local parking conditions are essential.

For all the above reasons, it is recommended to first take a broad look at all of the public spaces studied in each of the two cities in order to understand the local conditions of both systems. This will shape the research and yield more appropriate or accurate results.

The result may be, in a secondary phase, to focus on a specific number of large green spaces, from which to draw meaningful conclusions that can be extrapolated to the entire system of green spaces and general accessibility by private vehicle in both cities.

3.Results + 4.Discussion + 5.Conclusions

The main problems in this section stem from the very poor cartographic and urban representation of the cities and their large green spaces analyzed. It is vitally important to improve these maps in terms of their accuracy, content, size of representation alongside the text, etc. This may mean more figures, more broken down and much more readable and understandable.

Public spaces cannot be represented solely as a spot with the location of their entrances. The surrounding city must be characterized, and above all, the road network must be prioritized and represented much better. A minimal cartography of major land uses or distinctions between the city center and the suburbs or residential areas or division of city districts must be carried out.

Making all this effort in two cities simultaneously is a lot; hence, our recommendation to thoroughly justify the need to select these two cities as a “case study.”

The necessity of section 3.2 on vegetation cover in these parks is not understood.

In section 3.3, a cartographic representation of the distribution of the population in the areas served by proximity or accessibility to these large urban parks would be highly recommended.

The reference to Figure 4 on line 317 is incorrect.

The problems with representation, size, definition, accuracy, and content in Figures 5 and 6 are similar to those described above.

The results of the final sections of section 3 are interesting and are presented as an advance in the discussion of the results. The final sections of the article are well developed, including conclusions.

However, the lack of a more complex and in-depth urban description of the conditions of the cities observed, with some photographic representation to help understand the type of road urbanization that is key to understanding these movements, as well as the types of entrances to these green spaces, makes these results less comprehensible.

If this integration between case studies, urban planning, mobility, and analysis according to the proposed methodology were more integrated and closer, the results would help in the formulation of strategies or recommendations for improvement that are more diverse in terms of scale (from systemic strategies to specific or local strategies in relation to these or new urban green spaces that compensate for these inequalities in access).

Author Response

The following are the comments, suggestions, questions, and requirements from the first reviewer, along with potential answers, clarifications, and manuscript developments.

Comment 1 Abstract

Initially, the need to select two rapidly growing cities that are dependent on cars is striking. Why only two, and why these two? Justification is needed to help guide the research.

Answer 1

Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. In the Abstract it is written rapid growing cities, details of why this city I the revised version Please see lines 128-135 in the revised version.

Comment 2 Abstract

Answer 2

Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with your point and have revised the abstract into one paragraph with fewer numbers. Please see lines 17-30 in the revised version.

Comment 3 Keywords

Answer 3

Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with your point and have revised and enhanced the content, arranging it accordingly.: Urban Green Space Car Accessibility, Equity, Spatial Disparities, Urban Zoning, Vegetation Cover, OpenRouteService, Google Maps, Rapid Urbanization, Google Earth Engine

Comment 4 Introduction

In this section, the concept of urban green spaces should be developed further, especially if such a specific distinction is made between the scales of green spaces.

Answer 4

Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with your comment and have further developed the concept of UGS, with a focus on size classification. Please see lines 45- 53 in the revised version.

Comment 5 Introduction

Answer 5

Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with your comment and have mentioned that, based on previous studies, accessibility to large urban green spaces (LUGS) by walking in both cities is less than 10%. Please see lines 304- 322 in the revised version. This highlights the need to study how people reach LUGS by car, which is the focus of this research. Details about green spaces and urban green spaces have been expanded in the revised version first result. Please see lines 304- 322 in the revised version.

Comment 6 Introduction

Answer 6

Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with your comment. The paragraph in the revised version now includes an enhanced discussion of the concept of accessibility, different modes of access, and methods of measurement. Please see lines 60-79 in the revised version.

Comment 6 Introduction

In general, section 1. Introduction is too long and contains a mixture of introductory questions and explanations and arguments that belong in a more theoretical section connecting the research with the key concepts discussed in the current state of the art or the disciplines involved in these topics. It is recommended that a standard Introduction be written to present the research and the text.

Much of the text currently in the Introduction would form part of this section 2 on Literature, but it would have the necessary space to be well developed, better conceptualizing the research.

Answer 6

Thank you for pointing this out. We agree to enhance this section in terms of conceptualization; however, we prefer to follow the Land Journal template, which presents the introduction and literature review as a single section. A new paragraph justifying the case study has also been added here, while the details and case studies have been incorporated into the methodology section.

Please see lines 129- 136 and 233-247 in the revised version.

Comment 7. 2. Materials and Methods

Answer 7

Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with your comment. Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with your comment. The choice of the case study has been justified in the revised version as follows: (Erbil and Sulaimaniyah are chosen as case studies in this unique region, which has no similar counterpart either in Iraq or in the surrounding countries, because they are the two largest cities in the KRI and exemplify rapidly developing urban centers that rely heavily on cars and face similar growth pressures. However, these cities differ in policies, political leadership, and geography: Erbil serves as the political and administrative capital under the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) and is situated on a flat plateau, while Sulaimaniyah serves as the cultural and educational capital under the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) and is located in a mountainous area.)

Comment 8. 2. Materials and Methods

Answer 8

Thank you for pointing this out. We agree on the importance of green space analysis and have added a new paragraph and figures to show vegetation and green space distribution, as well as the location of LUGS within UGS. Additionally, information about LUGS within the city, including active gates and gates with parking, has been included. Furthermore, details regarding inner, transitional, and outer zones, along with population density, the road network, and the city elevation profile, are provided. We believe these additions will enhance the comprehensive understanding of the topic. However, since our paper focuses on the city level, details of urban form, residential fabric, and the local urban situation are beyond its scope. Please see lines 233- 243 and 304-320 in the revised version.

Comment 9. 2. Materials and Methods

Answer 9

Thank you for pointing this out. We agree on the point, the fugue is being resized and can be read easily. they have been described detail. Please see lines 264 - 286 in the revised version.

Comment 10. 2. Materials and Methods

Figure 2 Similarly, Figure 2 is inadequate in terms of size, definition, and legibility.

Answer 10

Thank you for pointing this out. We agree on the point, the fugue is being resized and can be read easily. Please see the details from lines 272- 278 in the revised version.

Comment 11. 2. Materials and Methods

Answer 11

Thank you for your comment. In our analysis, we considered two scenarios: (1) when parking is available at the park entrance gate, and (2) when parking is not available directly at the entrance. However, we did not evaluate the occupancy rates or the availability of free parking spaces, as this was beyond the scope of the present study. Please see lines 489- 495 in the revised version.

Comment 11. 2. Materials and Methods

Answer 11

We already answer these at the above. Please see 1 to 11 answers.

Comment 3.Results + 4.Discussion + 5.Conclusions

Making all this effort in two cities simultaneously is a lot; hence, our recommendation to thoroughly justify the need to select these two cities as a “case study.”

Answer

Thank you for pointing this out. The justification available answer 7.

The necessity of section 3.2 on vegetation cover in these parks is not understood.

Answer

Thank you for the comment. The section on vegetation cover is included to address a key qualitative aspect of green space accessibility. By examining vegetation cover, we can determine whether people have high accessibility to parks with dense, healthy vegetation—or if they are mostly accessing spaces with sparse or degraded vegetation. High vegetation cover is strongly linked to better shade, higher biodiversity, improved aesthetics, and enhanced recreational opportunities, which are essential for user satisfaction and ecosystem benefits.)

In section 3.3, a cartographic representation of the distribution of the population in the areas served by proximity or accessibility to these large urban parks would be highly recommended.

The reference to Figure 4 on line 317 is incorrect.

Answer

Thanks this has been fixed

The problems with representation, size, definition, accuracy, and content in Figures 5 and 6 are similar to those described above.

Answer

I have tried to enhance with other figures and more detail, please see line 399 and 413.

If this integration between case studies, urban planning, mobility, and analysis according to the proposed methodology were more integrated and closer, the results would help in the formulation of strategies or recommendations for improvement that are more diverse in terms of scale (from systemic strategies to specific or local strategies in relation to these or new urban green spaces that compensate for these inequalities in access).

Thank you for all your comments. I have tried to address them as thoroughly as possible, and I appreciate your time and consideration.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors analyze the accessibility of large urban green spaces (LUGS) by car in Erbil and Sulaimaniyah – the aim being to highlight spatial and social disparities in the distribution and use of these spaces. The study answers well-defined questions, focusing on the spatial distribution of parks, entrances, population and differences in access by car.
The paper makes a valuable contribution in a field where research is usually focused on pedestrian access or public transport. The analysis of car access to green spaces is less researched. The research presented in this paper brings useful information regarding this neglected aspect until now.
The research method is clearly described, is rigorous and includes: calibration of data generated with OpenRouteService (ORS), integration with information from Google Maps. The authors provide a replicable framework for assessing the accessibility of green spaces in other cities.
The study highlights three main factors that influence access to LUGS: the number of accesses, population density and road network connectivity.
I suggest the following:
• to mention if the car routes were analyzed at different times of the day or over several days, to cover traffic variations;
• to more clearly discuss the impact of the absence of socio-demographic data on the conclusions;
• to introduce field information about operating hours, entrance status or signage into the study;
• to introduce a sensitivity test of the correction factor (eg ±10% variation) to validate the robustness of the proposed model.
The conclusions are supported by the results obtained. The authors propose pertinent solutions based on the results. The paper is well referenced, I did not observe any self-citations. The graphs and figures support the text of the paper and contribute to the understanding of the results.
I recommend that in the figures with accessibility maps (Fig. 5 and 6), a clearer chromatic differentiation be made between served and unserved areas.
I recommend that Table 1 be completed with an additional indicator regarding the percentage of vegetation cover, in order to correlate the size of the parks with the ecological quality.
The paper has a coherent structure, the research process is well argued. The conclusions and proposals of the authors can guide urban policies.

Author Response

The following are the comments, suggestions, questions, and requirements from the first reviewer, along with potential answers, clarifications, and manuscript developments.

Comment 1

to mention if the car routes were analyzed at different times of the day or over several days, to cover traffic variations;

Answer 1

Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with your point. It has been enhanced in the revised version

Travel durations from LUGS gates to the outer boundaries of the isochrones were computed using geographic coordinates and compared to Google Maps travel times. The car route was analyzed based on different days in May and June and at various times of day, taking into account both the shortest and fastest available routes. As a result, the ORS analysis consistently overestimates compared to Google Maps. A correction factor of 1.25 (Figure 5), which is the mean value within a range of 1.13 to 1.40, was used to calibrate the results. Please see lines 272–278 in the revised version.

Comment 2

to more clearly discuss the impact of the absence of socio-demographic data on the conclusions;

Answer 2

Thank you for this observation. I agree with your point. Adding detailed socio-demographic data, including income levels and gender-specific car ownership, which are currently unavailable in the KRG, would enable a more comprehensive evaluation of equitable access to urban green spaces (UGS), and uncover additional layers of interpretation and enhance understanding of accessibility disparities. This is out of the research scope.

Comment 3

to introduce field information about operating hours, entrance status or signage into the study;

Answer 3

Thank you for your comment. Gate locations were identified using Google Earth and local expertise. The gates are generally open from early morning to late at night; however, this does not apply to all gates. The other details are out of the scope.

Comment 4

to introduce a sensitivity test of the correction factor (eg ±10% variation) to validate the robustness of the proposed model.

Answer 4

Thank you for your comment, the mean of correction factor is already from generate it from almost almost ± 10 %, and currently the ORS API not working to test it again.

Comment 5

I recommend that in the figures with accessibility maps (Fig. 5 and 6), a clearer chromatic differentiation be made between served and unserved areas.

Answer 5

Thank you for your comment. I agree with your point. Based on your recommendation, I have created a figure showing the served and unserved areas. Please see lines 399 and 413 in the revised version.

Comment 6

I recommend that Table 1 be completed with an additional indicator regarding the percentage of vegetation cover, in order to correlate the size of the parks with the ecological quality.

Answer 6

Thank you for your suggestion. While I appreciate the idea of including the percentage of vegetation cover, the current structure of the paper does not allow us to present it in Table 1, as this information is introduced a few paragraphs later.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Title

Right

Abstract

Initially, the need to select two rapidly growing cities that are dependent on cars is striking. Why only two, and why these two? Justification is needed to help guide the research.

Solved

I believe that the abstract does not need such detailed numerical or specific conclusions and should stick to advancing general conclusions that can be expected in the article.

Solved

In line 32, it is not clear what CA means. I think it would be better if the abstract were concentrated in a single paragraph, rather than structured in three.

Solved

Keywords

Keywords need to be rethought. They need to be ordered according to their centrality and level of importance to the research.

Solved

Keywords should be agreed-upon disciplinary concepts addressed in the article, rather than overly specific or even anecdotal concepts of minor importance.

Partially solved / From my point of view, the keywords that should be used are the following: (1) Urban Green Spaces, (2) Car Accessibility, (3) Urban Equity, (4) Social disparities, (5) Land Uses Planning, (6) OpenRouteService and (7) Google Earth Engine.

Introduction

In this section, the concept of urban green spaces should be developed further, especially if such a specific distinction is made between the scales of green spaces. If the article refers to large public spaces, a specific approach to this subject should be developed, considering the network dimension of public space as a mitigating factor in situations where there is a lack of accessibility to larger green spaces.

Partially solved

Solved

The issue has not been addressed / The article is definitely presented merging in the introductory section, the introduction to the text and to the research, with the starting reflections or theoretical cut to which the research needs to be linked.

For me, it would be clearer if the Introduction were short and focused only on introduction, and there was a specific theoretical section after it and before section 3 (Materials and methods). If this is not desired, I would recommend introducing some intermediate title, such as a subsection or subsection to the Introduction.

The issue has not been addressed

Partially solved / An explanation of the structure of the document and a preview of the main results and conclusions that will be read later do not still appear.

At the same time, it is recommended to create a section 2 called “Literature” that is structured around the main foundations of the research: the type of object of study addressed, the main issue addressed and its derivatives, the contextualization of the issue in terms of the type of city and urban development framework, etc. Much of the text currently in the Introduction would form part of this section 2 on Literature, but it would have the necessary space to be well developed, better conceptualizing the research.

The issue has not been addressed

Similarly, the case study should be presented in general terms in the Introduction, with the specific content necessary to justify its selection.

Solved

However, it is recommended that a specific section be created on the selected cities, their methodological rationale, and their context, which should be linked to the Methodology section.

Partially resolved between the introduction and the corresponding section of the second section.

The problem identified remains.

The references mix very different contexts and scales of cities, this should be adjusted and distance should be taken from the less comparable cases, going deeper into those references that are closer to the starting method of this research or to the situation of urban green spaces in the cities studied. In any case, between lines 131 and 135, the references should follow each case mentioned, not all of them one after the other at the end of the paragraph.

Materials and Methods

Solved

Partially solved

Solved

Similarly, Figure 2 is inadequate in terms of size, definition, and legibility.

Solved

Right. Previously considered.

Partially solved

Right. Previously considered.

3.Results + 4.Discussion + 5.Conclusions

Partially solved

The issue has not been addressed

Making all this effort in two cities simultaneously is a lot; hence, our recommendation to thoroughly justify the need to select these two cities as a “case study.”

Solved

The necessity of section 3.2 on vegetation cover in these parks is not understood.

The issue has not been addressed. The problem identified remains.

In section 3.3, a cartographic representation of the distribution of the population in the areas served by proximity or accessibility to these large urban parks would be highly recommended.

Solved

The reference to Figure 4 on line 317 is incorrect.

Solved

The problems with representation, size, definition, accuracy, and content in Figures 5 and 6 are similar to those described above.

Solved

Right. Previously considered.

The issue has not been addressed. The problem identified remains.

This reviewer does not know if there is a maximum number of pages, words or figures for this paper that this manuscript is close to exceeding.

If this were not a problem, I would like to insist that a greater explanation and visualization of the characteristics of some of the selected LUGs, would help to understand the results and to refine them in their description, contributing to the objective of improving the accessibility to these spaces, situations of doors, parking, transportation policies that help to improve the results of accessibility to these spaces obtained.

Partially solved

Author Response

The following are the remaining comments from the reviewer and the corresponding potential answers.

Introduction

Partially solved

Answer / Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with your comment and have made enhancements; please see lines 53 to 78.

Answer / Thank you for pointing this out. I believe I have addressed this; please see the Introduction.

The issue has not been addressed

Answer/ Thank you for pointing this out. I agree, and for easier understanding, I have added the subheadings.

Partially solved / An explanation of the structure of the document and a preview of the main results and conclusions that will be read later do not still appear.

Answer/ Thank you for pointing this out. I agree, and I have addressed the motivation and the structure of the document along with other points. Please see lines 203–209 and 226–233.

The issue has not been addressed

Answer / Thank you. I agree, I thin it is same as former and for easier understanding, I have added the subheadings.

However, it is recommended that a specific section be created on the selected cities, their methodological rationale, and their context, which should be linked to the Methodology section.

Partially resolved between the introduction and the corresponding section of the second section.

Answer/ Thank you. I believe I have addressed this to some extent in lines 257–289.

The problem identified remains.

Answer/ Thank you for pointing this out. I agree; therefore, the references have been fixed, please see lines 100–104. I have used a wide range of sources from around the world, including both East and West, to highlight the real issue of UGS equity with a focus on cities.

Materials and Methods

Partially solved

Answer/ Thank you for pointing this out. I agree and have enhanced Figure 8c to show the urban context around LUGS, and Figure 8d to improve understanding of the gates.

Partially solved

Thank you. I have not included the units and blocks, as they are outside the scope of my study, which focuses on the city and zonal scales. However, I have added more figures to represent the details; please see Figure 14.

Partially solved

Answer/ Thank you for your suggestion. I agree that taking a broad look at all the public spaces in each city is valuable for understanding the local conditions. I have incorporated this overview into the analysis to strengthen the research and improve the accuracy of the results. Specifically, I have mapped all vegetation cover at the city scale using NDVI via GEE, assessed green spaces according to municipal data, and analyzed LUGS based on their size and my defined criteria.

3.Results + 4.Discussion + 5.Conclusions

Partially solved

Answer/ Thank you for pointing this out. I agree and have enhanced with Figures.

The issue has not been addressed

Answer/ Thank you for pointing this out. I show more figure to represent details please see figure 8(c) and 9 (c).

The necessity of section 3.2 on vegetation cover in these parks is not understood.

The issue has not been addressed. The problem identified remains.

Thank you. I aim to answer the following question: What is the quality of the LUGS in terms of vegetative cover proportion? In the end, I will determine whether the best-performing LUGS also exhibit high or low quality based on vegetation cover.

The issue has not been addressed. The problem identified remains.

This reviewer does not know if there is a maximum number of pages, words or figures for this paper that this manuscript is close to exceeding.

Thank you for pointing this out. I agree and have enhanced the manuscript by adding additional figures to better illustrate the points.

Partially solved

Thank you for this insightful comment and for your time. We agree that a closer integration of case studies, urban planning, mobility, and the proposed methodology could indeed yield more diverse and actionable recommendations across different scales. We acknowledge that achieving this would require further in-depth investigation, which we consider an important direction for future research.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Article Menu

Assessing Travel-Time Accessibility to Urban Green Spaces in Car-Dependent Cities: Evidence from Erbil and Sulaimaniyah, Kurdistan Region of Iraq

Further Information

Guidelines

MDPI Initiatives

Follow MDPI