Modeling Urban Green Access: Combining Zone-Based Proximity and Demand-Weighted Metrics in a Medium-Sized U.S. City

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study focuses on East Lansing, a medium-sized U.S. city, integrating four spatial models including Euclidean distance, gravity-based access, two-step floating catchment area (2SFCA), and zone-based statistics into a composite index to explore spatial inequalities in urban green space accessibility. After careful review, this manuscript employs sound scientific methods with in-depth analysis. I recommend acceptance after minor revisions. The following are specific suggestions for improvement:

1. In the introduction section discussing urban green space inequality issues, it is recommended to incorporate relevant research on green equity practice models in multicultural cities. The reference "Urban green equity on the ground: Practice-based models of urban green equity in three multicultural cities" should be cited in lines 45-57 where the discussion focuses on marginalized groups' unequal access to quality urban green spaces. This addition would enrich the theoretical foundation of urban green equity across different cultural contexts and enhance the international comparative perspective of the research.
2. When discussing the health and psychological impacts of urban green space inequality on residents, it is suggested to supplement the latest research progress on the relationship between green equity and resident happiness. The reference "Green disparities, happiness elusive: Decoding the spatial mismatch between green equity and the happiness from vulnerable perspectives" should be incorporated in lines 48-57 where the physical and mental health impacts of urban green space deprivation are discussed. This would strengthen the theoretical support for the relationship between green space accessibility and resident well-being.
3. The discussion of the ecological functions of urban green spaces needs further improvement. It is recommended to cite "The mitigating effect of green Space's spatial and temporal patterns on the urban heat island in the context of urban densification: A case study of Xi'an" in lines 36-44 where the ecological, social, and health benefits of urban green spaces are discussed. This addition would supplement research on the mechanisms by which urban green spaces mitigate urban heat island effects, enriching the theoretical foundation of urban green space ecological service functions.
4. In the discussion of the impact of racial and socioeconomic factors on green space accessibility, it is suggested to add support from relevant empirical studies. The references "Racial/ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in urban green space accessibility: Where to intervene?" and "Analysis of urban green space accessibility and distribution inequity in the City of Chicago" should be cited in lines 45-57 where the discussion focuses on marginalized groups' unequal access to green spaces. This would strengthen the empirical foundation for the impact of race and socioeconomic status on green space accessibility while providing specific urban case support.
5. The multi-model integration approach in the methodology section is innovative, but it is recommended to further explain the basis and rationality for determining the weights of each model in the composite index construction process. This methodological transparency is crucial for other researchers to replicate and apply this method, and it also helps improve the credibility of the research results.
6. It is suggested to add comparative analysis with green space accessibility research results from other medium-sized cities in the results discussion section to verify the universality and specificity of the research findings. Such comparative analysis would not only highlight the representativeness of East Lansing as a typical medium-sized city but also identify possible regional characteristics and universal patterns, providing broader reference value for policy making.
7. The policy recommendations section of the article is relatively brief, and it is suggested to propose more targeted and operational green space planning and management strategy recommendations based on the specific urban characteristics of East Lansing. Particularly, differentiated green space improvement strategies should be developed for different communities based on the spatial heterogeneity characteristics revealed by the research, making such recommendations more practically instructive.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Congratulating the authors for addressing an important and timely topic with their study on equitable access to urban green spaces in East Lansing. The paper’s main objective—developing a composite accessibility index by integrating multiple models and applying regression techniques (OLS/GWR) in a medium-sized city—represents a relevant and ambitious contribution to ongoing debates on environmental justice and urban planning.

These comments intended solely to help you improve the manuscript and transform it into a more robust scientific article. The study already demonstrates solid potential, but several areas could be strengthened:

Abstract and Introduction: Clarify the novelty beyond methodology, streamline technical detail, improve academic English, and add a roadmap paragraph to guide the reader.

Literature Review: Reorganise into thematic subsections, expand the number of references, and engage more critically with existing studies to highlight the research gap.

Methodology: Improve organisation, justify the composite index weighting, and provide at least a discussion of validation or robustness checks. Consider summarising models in a comparative table for clarity.

Results: Present findings more concisely, focus on interpretation rather than description, and explicitly link outputs to the claimed innovation.

Discussion and Conclusions: Deepen engagement with international literature, provide categorical answers to the three research questions, highlight policy implications, and clearly distinguish between methodological, empirical, and practical contributions. Explicitly acknowledge limitations and suggest avenues for future research.

Language and Presentation: Revise for more idiomatic academic English and ensure smoother flow between sections.

By addressing these points, the manuscript can more effectively demonstrate its originality, methodological soundness, and practical relevance, thus enhancing its value to the readership of Land. For more details, please see attached document.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

While the introduction succeeds in situating the study within the field of urban green space accessibility, some passages suffer from non-idiomatic or colloquial expressions that do not align with the conventions of academic English. For instance, phrases such as “exploitation of UGSs causes problems in the mind of people” should be reformulated in a more precise and academic manner. Careful editing for clarity, conciseness, and tone would considerably strengthen the impact in all sections.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Congratulations to the authors for the substantial improvements made in this revised version. You have successfully addressed and resolved most of the suggestions raised in the previous round. The paper’s main objective—developing a composite accessibility index by integrating multiple models and applying regression techniques (OLS/GWR) in a medium-sized city—constitutes a relevant and ambitious contribution to ongoing debates on environmental justice and urban planning, and will undoubtedly advance our understanding of urban accessibility.

In Version 2.0, the abstract has been clearly revised to reduce overly technical language, with greater emphasis placed on the novelty and the practical significance of the study. Likewise, the introduction shows improvement in the formulation of hypotheses and in the justification of the study’s focus. Although a roadmap paragraph has now been included to guide the reader (Page 5, Section 2.4: “Added a roadmap paragraph outlining the structure of the paper”), it would be more appropriate to place this paragraph at the end of the introduction. We therefore recommend relocating it in the final version of the manuscript.

The literature review has been improved and is now structured around five subthemes: Conceptualizing Accessibility; Measurement Approaches of Accessibility; Spatial Statistical Approaches; Research Gaps and Emerging Directions. Within these, a greater number of references are included, and the limitations of previous models are more explicitly identified, which strengthens the critical perspective. This enhancement is essential for positioning and discussing the results obtained. Congratulations on this significant progress.

The methodology has also been reorganized into clear subsections: Study Areas; Data Collection; Multi-Model Framework for Accessibility Measurement; Modeling Approaches; Linear Regression Model; Spatial Regression for Heterogeneity and Inequality. In this way, most of the suggestions have been incorporated. While the section remains extensive, it demonstrates transparency and thoroughness, which is crucial to ensuring the replicability of the method. Congratulations in particular for the inclusion of the comparative table of models, which is a key element in reinforcing the strength of the contribution the authors are presenting. This is especially important, as it directly addresses the research gap that the study seeks to fill.

In light of these improvements, the results clearly demonstrate the strength of the applied method. They are now more effectively synthesised, and their interpretation is well developed, showing a genuine analytical perspective rather than merely a quantitative description. Although the section remains somewhat dense, the figures greatly facilitate interpretation. Congratulations on this achievement.

In my view, the most significant improvement lies in the discussion—congratulations again. This section has been rewritten to respond directly to the research questions; comparisons with the literature have been expanded; the study’s innovation is clearly positioned against prior work; and both policy implications and the limitations of the index are explicitly addressed. As a result, the conclusions have also been restructured in a more robust way. They now provide categorical answers to the research questions, distinguish between methodological, empirical, and policy contributions, and include a clear recognition of limitations as well as directions for future research.

The revised discussion now allows the authors to reach firm conclusions regarding the proposed hypotheses. The contributions are clearly distinguished (methodological, empirical, and policy-related), and the manuscript now explicitly includes limitations and avenues for future research.

Overall, with the extensive work carried out, the article now presents a coherent argumentative line grounded in the application of the scientific method, making it suitable for a publication of this category. The manuscript is clearer, better organised, and its contributions are more visible. Some areas may still benefit from further refinement, such as synthesising a few sections of results that remain dense and carrying out a final review of the academic English. However, these are relatively minor aspects. Congratulations once again to the authors for the substantial progress achieved.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

A general suggestion whit a minor revision, but important: would by to undertake one more careful review the english language to ensure clarity, consistency, and fluency throughout the manuscript. This will help stregthen the overall readability and academic presentation of this article.

Author Response

Dear reviewer and editor,

We were very thankful for all the positive comments the reviewer had on our revised manuscript. We also focused on two important suggestions: relocating the roadmap paragraph, and rechecking the overall English language. Hence, we revised the manuscript accordingly and replied to these two comments here:

1. A general suggestion whit a minor revision, but important: would by to undertake one more careful review the English language to ensure clarity, consistency, and fluency throughout the manuscript. This will help strengthen the overall readability and academic presentation of this article.

Response:

We appreciate this valuable feedback. A thorough language revision has been completed to improve clarity, consistency, and fluency throughout the manuscript. Specifically, key terms were refined (e.g., show revised to demonstrate, values to scores) to enhance academic tone, long or repetitive expressions were streamlined (e.g., tree planting along sidewalks revised to planting street trees), and several sentences were restructured for conciseness and logical flow (e.g., aligns with emerging calls revised to responds to emerging calls).

1. In Version 2.0, the abstract has been clearly revised to reduce overly technical language, with greater emphasis placed on the novelty and the practical significance of the study. Likewise, the introduction shows improvement in the formulation of hypotheses and in the justification of the study’s focus. Although a roadmap paragraph has now been included to guide the reader (Page 5, Section 2.4: “Added a roadmap paragraph outlining the structure of the paper”), it would be more appropriate to place this paragraph at the end of the introduction. We therefore recommend relocating it in the final version of the manuscript.

Response:

Thank you for this insightful suggestion. In the revised version, the roadmap paragraph has been relocated to the end of the introduction section, as recommended, ensuring a clearer and more logical flow for the manuscript.