Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article deals with a current and interesting topic, namely the inclusive quality of urban parks. It is well-structured and is based on state-of-the-art literature.

However, it lacks a more systematic approach to those marginalised groups that refers to: the elderly, children, ethnic minorities and people of colour. The data shown in tables and figures do not distinguish between types of groups and therefore it is not possible to appreciate, for example, the differences in the way in which one group perceives itself in relation to another. 

Just because the article is systematic in its internal structure, I think it is not necessary to completely rewrite the content. But it is, however, necessary to provide a figure (or a table) where the reader can appreciate the difference "in contrast", the "critical" difference, of one minority group in relation to another; or one minority group in relation to the majority group.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

 Park Inclusive Design Index as a Systematic Evaluation Framework To Improve Inclusive Urban Park Uses: The Case Of  Hangzhou Urban Park

 

General comment

The component of Inclusive Urban Park Uses should be more emphasised in the paper. These uses have not come out well and should be improved from results to conclusion

 

Abstract

The abstract should be re written. It is not drafted as per the study objectives and topic. Secondly, the sentences are long with unnecessary full stops. See line 21. Thirdly, the implication of this study to park management is weak and needs to be improved

 

Introduction  

Page 2 Line 57 – and others – some of the sentences require modification – grammatically

 

Model page 3

Much as the authors have presented the model, however, they need demonstrate the limitations and how they have overcame them

 

Methodology

In this section, the authors should state or describe the studied area. They also provide the implication of these results to Hangzhou.

 

Table 1

CR value for Support for motion ability dimension, requires further reconstruct. Tactile sensation value seems to be high. Authors should confirm the values again

 

Results and discussion

Authors should note that results and discussion section are different.

Table 3. The classified parks should be explain in detail – for example what are specialized parks

Conclusion

Much as this section is well structured, authors should provide further global justification of this work to science and park conservation and management

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

In terms of English, minor editing is required

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have chosen a very interesting area concerning Park Inclusive Design Index as a Systematic Evaluation Frame- 2 work To Improve Inclusive Urban Park Uses: The Case Of 3 Hangzhou Urban Park. This is a well chosen thematic area, as in the post-Covid times, parks started to become more frequented areas. There is a brief mention of international research on IDI in other countries, but this paper mainly focuses on a single park in China. There are some issues lacking in presented methodology and various issues must be explained in more detail. If "Hangzhou was chosen as the research area due to its economic development, urban infrastructure, and green space construction" - then the authors should present a bench mark against other research areas which were considered before Hanzghou was chosen. Pease explain how were the citizen representatives from Hangzhou chosen and how many of them there were initially and how  30 pilot users and stakeholders from different institutions were chosen - what were the prevailing parameters as to this particular choice; and if they belonged to different institutions did they also vary in e.i. age or level of education - as this can highly influence the final outcome. The discussion should be far broader and include other findings in other countries. Part of the existing data should be moved from Discussion section to Conclusions. As presently, what is included in the Conclusions is insufficient to be a robust set of data. Please be aware that scientific papers are always presented in a third person. Therefore one should not write "our study" or "we have developed", but "the studies" or "author studies" etc.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required, this also means correction where the text has been presented in the first person, as "us" instead of "the authors"

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

At this stage the paper can be accepted .

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required