Spatial equity in the layout of urban public sports facilities in Hangzhou

Yujuan Chen; Ning Lin; Yangyang Wu; Liang Ding; Jun Pang; Tonghua Lv

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0256174

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionApril 1, 2021
27 Apr 2021 Decision Letter - Jun Yang, Editor PONE-D-21-10518 Spatial Equity in the Layout of Urban Public Sports Facilities PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Ding, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 11 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Jun Yang Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Regarding Data-sharing policy, it is unclear why authors have selected 'No - some restrictions will apply'. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access. We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter. 3. Thank you for stating the following in the Financial Disclosure section: 'The authors received no specific funding for this work.' We note that one or more of the authors are employed by a commercial company: Hangzhou Xuelian Land Planning Co,. LTD a. Please provide an amended Funding Statement declaring this commercial affiliation, as well as a statement regarding the Role of Funders in your study. If the funding organization did not play a role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript and only provided financial support in the form of authors' salaries and/or research materials, please review your statements relating to the author contributions, and ensure you have specifically and accurately indicated the role(s) that these authors had in your study. You can update author roles in the Author Contributions section of the online submission form. Please also include the following statement within your amended Funding Statement. “The funder provided support in the form of salaries for authors [insert relevant initials], but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.” If your commercial affiliation did play a role in your study, please state and explain this role within your updated Funding Statement. b. Please also provide an updated Competing Interests Statement declaring this commercial affiliation along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, or marketed products, etc. Within your Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this commercial affiliation does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests) . If this adherence statement is not accurate and there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared. c. Please include both an updated Funding Statement and Competing Interests Statement in your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf. Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests 4. We note that Figures 3, 4 and 7-10 in your submission contain map images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright. We require you to either (a) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (b) remove the figures from your submission: a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figures 3, 4 and 7-10 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text: “I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.” Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission. In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].” b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only. The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful: USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/ The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/ Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/ Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/ USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/# Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/ 5. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ 6. Please include a copy of Table 3 which you refer to in your text on page 8. Additional Editor Comments: Reviewer 1 This paper proposes a framework for a layout evaluation of urban public sports facilities. The methods are sound, and analysis is comprehensive. However, there are still some problems: 1. Title. It is better to add your research area (Hangzhou). 2. Abstract. Condense your methods and work. Put more efforts on your research findings. 3. Introduction. “As such, there is a need to develop an approach to evaluate the spatial distribution of urban public sports facilities from the spatial equity perspective.” The author brought up with the gap, however, it lacked related literature review to prove that empirical evaluation of sports facilities distribution from spatial equity perspective is rare. Introduction needs to be enriched. 4. “2.3 Data sources”. Data (of 2017) need to be updated. 5. Gini coefficient and Lorentz curve can both describe equity. Why bother use these two indicaters, please give explanations. 6. Figures. The fonts need to be unified. 7. There are some grammar and expression errors, please polish the language in order to better convey your ideas. Reviewer 2 This article provides a framework for the layout of urban public sports facilities. Concentric rings are created for measuring the service scopes at different levels. The Gini coefficient, lorenz curve and location entropy are employed to measure the equity of the distribution among spatial units and the intradistrict disparity. Nevertheless, there are many problems in this paper. The suggestions are given as below: (1)I think that noticeable defects still exist in terms of innovation and its engineering application prospect. First of all, the paper about the introduction has no explanation for the current situation of measuring spatial equity, and there is no elaboration on the equity of sports facilities or the research progress of other public facilities in regions and cities. It also makes the research on the method lack of theoretical basis. The review of the current research emphasizes that the fairness of the spatial distribution of public sports facilities which mainly lies in solving the demand of people, the correlation between the differences in urban public facilities and the relationship between the scale and quantity of public sports facilities. However, the theory is more unconvincing especially in the following 2.2.2 about the Gini coefficient and Lorentz curve proposed. The novelty of the paper is difficult to be put forward on the basis of literature review without comparing with other researchers' previous work, that is, the gaps and novelty of the paper should be clearly emphasized. (2) Figure 1, Calculation diagram of effective service area of public sports facilities. The diagram between the three should not use the same color as far as possible, because the size is relative. (3) In part 2.2.3 of this article, the labeling of the location entropy formula is different from the description in this paper. (4) What is the basis for " Usually, when choosing a higher-level facility, residents tend to accept higher time and distance thresholds." on page 7? " defining concentric rings for medical facilities " does not indicate the literature basis. (5) Where is "Table 3"? (6) Figure 3 and figure 4 are only superposition relations, which have no significance to explain separately. It is suggested that only figure 4 be used to illustrate the problem. (7) The traditional research review in part 4.1 should be included in the introduction. (8) This paper uses the cross-sectional data of population in 2017. The reliability and rigor of the data have yet to be agreed. (9) The paper draws five conclusions about the impact on the layout of public sports facilities in Hangzhou through the five methods used in the article. Are these five parts overlapping? It needs to be further summarized, which is not mentioned in the conclusion. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Partly ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: This paper proposes a framework for a layout evaluation of urban public sports facilities. The methods are sound, and analysis is comprehensive. However, there are still some problems: 1. Title. It is better to add your research area (Hangzhou). 2. Abstract. Condense your methods and work. Put more efforts on your research findings. 3. Introduction. “As such, there is a need to develop an approach to evaluate the spatial distribution of urban public sports facilities from the spatial equity perspective.” The author brought up with the gap, however, it lacked related literature review to prove that empirical evaluation of sports facilities distribution from spatial equity perspective is rare. Introduction needs to be enriched. 4. “2.3 Data sources”. Data (of 2017) need to be updated. 5. Gini coefficient and Lorentz curve can both describe equity. Why bother use these two indicaters, please give explanations. 6. Figures. The fonts need to be unified. 7. There are some grammar and expression errors, please polish the language in order to better convey your ideas. Reviewer #2: This article provides a framework for the layout of urban public sports facilities. Concentric rings are created for measuring the service scopes at different levels. The Gini coefficient, lorenz curve and location entropy are employed to measure the equity of the distribution among spatial units and the intradistrict disparity. Nevertheless, there are many problems in this paper. The suggestions are given as below: (1)I think that noticeable defects still exist in terms of innovation and its engineering application prospect. First of all, the paper about the introduction has no explanation for the current situation of measuring spatial equity, and there is no elaboration on the equity of sports facilities or the research progress of other public facilities in regions and cities. It also makes the research on the method lack of theoretical basis. The review of the current research emphasizes that the fairness of the spatial distribution of public sports facilities which mainly lies in solving the demand of people, the correlation between the differences in urban public facilities and the relationship between the scale and quantity of public sports facilities. However, the theory is more unconvincing especially in the following 2.2.2 about the Gini coefficient and Lorentz curve proposed. The novelty of the paper is difficult to be put forward on the basis of literature review without comparing with other researchers' previous work, that is, the gaps and novelty of the paper should be clearly emphasized. (2) Figure 1, Calculation diagram of effective service area of public sports facilities. The diagram between the three should not use the same color as far as possible, because the size is relative. (3) In part 2.2.3 of this article, the labeling of the location entropy formula is different from the description in this paper. (4) What is the basis for " Usually, when choosing a higher-level facility, residents tend to accept higher time and distance thresholds." on page 7? " defining concentric rings for medical facilities " does not indicate the literature basis. (5) Where is "Table 3"? (6) Figure 3 and figure 4 are only superposition relations, which have no significance to explain separately. It is suggested that only figure 4 be used to illustrate the problem. (7) The traditional research review in part 4.1 should be included in the introduction. (8) This paper uses the cross-sectional data of population in 2017. The reliability and rigor of the data have yet to be agreed. (9) The paper draws five conclusions about the impact on the layout of public sports facilities in Hangzhou through the five methods used in the article. Are these five parts overlapping? It needs to be further summarized, which is not mentioned in the conclusion. ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?** For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256174.r001
Revision 1
16 Jun 2021 Author Response Dear Editor: We feel great thanks for your professional review work on our article. As you are concerned, there are several problems that need to be addressed. According to your nice suggestions, we have confirmed and modified the following problems. 1) Thank you for providing the following statement in your Response to Reviewers document: "Issues 3: We note your current data availability statement: "All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files." We also note your statement in your response to reviewers document: The paper data has been modified to be shareable. Before we proceed, we’ll require some additional clarification to ensure your submission adheres to the PLOS ONE Data Availability policy (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability). 1) If you have upload your data to a repository, please also provide the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers for other researchers to access your data directly. For a list of recommended public repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. Response：The data of this paper has been uploaded to the repository, and the URLs is https://figshare.com/s/c05872042227c1a5d9fc. If necessary, please click on the website to visit. 2) Please clarify whether you intend to make your data available publicly upon acceptance for publication. Once we receive this information, we will update your data availability statement on your behalf. Response：Data for this paper will not be made available publicly upon acceptance for publication." Please note that PLOS only permits data to be restricted from public access if there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing the data. Before we proceed, we’ll require some additional information to ensure your submission adheres to the PLOS policy on acceptable data access restrictions: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-acceptable-data-access-restrictions. 1) Please confirm whether there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing your data publicly. 2) If legal or ethical restrictions apply, please provide all necessary instructions and non-author contact information (preferably email) for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body other researchers would require to apply for data access. Note that it is not acceptable for an author to be the sole named individual responsible for ensuring data access. 3) If there are no legal or ethical restrictions on sharing your data publicly, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files, or to a stable public repository. If you upload your data to a repository, please also provide the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers for other researchers to access your data directly. For a list of recommended public repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. 4) We note that the DOI provided (10.6084/m9.figshare.14754552) does note direct to your data set(s). If there are no legal or ethical restrictions on sharing your data publicly, please ensure that any URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers you provide direct to your data. Response：There are no legal or ethical restrictions on sharing our data publicly. The URLs is https://figshare.com/s/c05872042227c1a5d9fc. We have chicked that the URLs directs to the data. Thank you again for your positive comments and valuable suggestions to improve the quality of our manuscript ! Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: 20210616Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256174.r002
6 Jul 2021 Decision Letter - Jun Yang, Editor PONE-D-21-10518R1 Spatial equity in the layout of urban public sports facilities in Hangzhou PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Ding, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 20 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Jun Yang Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (if provided): Reviewer 1 In the "Response to Reviewers" document, I can only see your response to the editor. Please upload your "response to reviewers" so that we can see your detailed modification and reasons according to the reviewers' comments. Also, please refer to this literature which may be helpful to you. "Study on the Impact of High-speed Railway Opening on China's Accessibility Pattern and Spatial Equality[J].Sustainability 2018,10,2943. doi:10.3390/su10082943". Reviewer 2 The article has been greatly improved after modification. No matter from the review of research literature or the clear innovation point, the work done is worth affirming. However, there are still some small problems that the author should consider carefully. The details are as follows: (1) What is the reference basis or literature of formula 2 and 3? Please indicate. (2) The format of reference is chaotic, so it is necessary to unify the format, pay attention to the abbreviation mode and the requirements of symbols and spaces. (3) The clarity of the article pictures should be adjusted uniformly. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Partly ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: In the "Response to Reviewers" document, I can only see your response to the editor. Please upload your "response to reviewers" so that we can see your detailed modification and reasons according to the reviewers' comments. Also, please refer to this literature which may be helpful to you. "Study on the Impact of High-speed Railway Opening on China's Accessibility Pattern and Spatial Equality[J].Sustainability 2018,10,2943. doi:10.3390/su10082943". Reviewer #2: The article has been greatly improved after modification. No matter from the review of research literature or the clear innovation point, the work done is worth affirming. However, there are still some small problems that the author should consider carefully. The details are as follows: (1) What is the reference basis or literature of formula 2 and 3? Please indicate. (2) The format of reference is chaotic, so it is necessary to unify the format, pay attention to the abbreviation mode and the requirements of symbols and spaces. (3) The clarity of the article pictures should be adjusted uniformly. ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?** For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256174.r003
Revision 2
21 Jul 2021 Author Response Response to Reviewers of the Second Review Dear Editor: We feel great thanks for your professional review work on our article. As you are concerned, there are several problems that need to be addressed. According to your nice suggestions, we have made further corrections to our previous draft, the detailed corrections are listed below. Reviewer 1 Issues 1: In the "Response to Reviewers" document, I can only see your response to the editor. Please upload your "response to reviewers" so that we can see your detailed modification and reasons according to the reviewers' comments. Response："Response to Reviewers" document of the first review is on the next page. Issues 2: Also, please refer to this literature which may be helpful to you. "Study on the Impact of High-speed Railway Opening on China's Accessibility Pattern and Spatial Equality[J].Sustainability 2018,10,2943. doi:10.3390/su10082943". Response：This literature has some enlightening significance on the research ideas and methods of this paper and has been cited. Reviewer 2 The article has been greatly improved after modification. No matter from the review of research literature or the clear innovation point, the work done is worth affirming. However, there are still some small problems that the author should consider carefully. The details are as follows: Issues 1: What is the reference basis or literature of formula 2 and 3? Please indicate. Response： Reference basis of Formula 2 and 3 is added in Section 2.2.2 and 2.2.3 of this paper. Issues 2: The format of reference is chaotic, so it is necessary to unify the format, pay attention to the abbreviation mode and the requirements of symbols and spaces. Response：The format of reference has been modified according to the requirements of the journal. Issues 3: The clarity of the article pictures should be adjusted uniformly. Response：The clarity of the pictures in this paper has been adjusted uniformly, and the pictures with poor clarity have been replaced. But the pictures in PDF are still not clear, so we uploaded figures in “orther” item. Response to Reviewers of the First Review Dear Editor: We feel great thanks for your professional review work on our article. As you are concerned, there are several problems that need to be addressed. According to your nice suggestions, we have made extensive corrections to our previous draft, the detailed corrections are listed below. Response to Journal Requirements: Requirement 1：Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf Response：The paper has been modified according to PLoS One's Style Requirements. Requirement 2：Regarding Data-sharing policy, it is unclear why authors have selected 'No - some restrictions will apply'. Response：The paper data has been modified to be shareable. Requirement 3：Thank you for stating the following in the Financial Disclosure section. Response：It has been explained in the cover letter that the author once studied as a graduate student in our school and volunteered to participate in the research after graduation. And check the contribution of the author in the online submission form, which is consistent with the voluntary statement. We compilated relevant contents in the Competing Interests Statement. Requirement 4：We note that Figures 3, 4 and 7-10 in your submission contain map images which may be copyrighted. Response： Maps are public data of the government. The source of the base map has been added in the revised manuscript, including the name of the website and the website address, which explains that it is public and does not involve copyright. Requirement 5：PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ Response：The ORCID ID has been set. 6. Please include a copy of Table 3 which you refer to in your text on page 8. Response： Table 3 has been supplemented Response to Reviewers 1 This paper proposes a framework for a layout evaluation of urban public sports facilities. The methods are sound, and analysis is comprehensive. However, there are still some problems: Comment 1： Title. It is better to add your research area (Hangzhou). Response：The research area of this paper (Hangzhou) has been added in the title. Comment 2： Abstract. Condense your methods and work. Put more efforts on your research findings. Response：As can be seen in the abstract of the revised manuscript, this paper has simplified the statement of the research methods and put emphasis on the elaboration of the results. Comment 3： Introduction. “As such, there is a need to develop an approach to evaluate the spatial distribution of urban public sports facilities from the spatial equity perspective.” The author brought up with the gap, however, it lacked related literature review to prove that empirical evaluation of sports facilities distribution from spatial equity perspective is rare. Introduction needs to be enriched. Response：This paper has re-modified the caontent of literature review in the introduction part. After literature review, There are few cases of the empirical evaluation of the distribution of sports facilities from the perspective of spatial equity. This paper finds that the spatial equity research of sports facilities mainly reflects in three aspects: Equalization, accessibility and optimized layout of facilities. However, the research on sports facilities is almost blank in the field that involved the “space matching” between facilities and residents, and the research methods are usually qualitative research, which has a certain hysteresis quality. In other words, the traditional urban public sports facilities planning adopts per capita index to try to ensure that the spatial allocation of public facilities reaches the goal of social equity, but lacks an effective method to evaluate the "spatial matching" of facilities and resident population distribution. In view of this, this paper proposed research design. Comment 4：“2.3 Data sources”. Data (of 2017) need to be updated. Response：China's population census is conducted every ten years. At present, the sixth census(2010) data is too old and the seventh census(2020) data has not yet been released. In 2017, Hangzhou municipal government conducted a miniature population By-census. The data is made public by the government(https://data.hz.zjzwfw.gov.cn/) and is the latest data before the 7th census is released. Hangzhou is a city with a population of ten million. A census of a large city with a population of nearly ten million is not conducted every year. Therefore, Based on the minimum research unit in this paper, the demographic data in 2017 are the most recent available. Meanwhile, urban public sports facilities, while having access to the latest data, are still used for the data of 2017 in order to be consistent with population data. The main purpose of this paper is to establish an a evaluation framework. So although there is a gap of 3 years between the data used in 2017 and the reality, the data in this paper should still be applicable to the method construction. Comment 4：Gini coefficient and Lorentz curve can both describe equity. Why bother use these two indicaters, please give explanations. Response：Both the Gini coefficient and the Lorentz curve are used to measure the degree of inequality of distribution, but they have different forms of expression.Gini coefficient is an overall numerical indicator, and is more concise. However，it does not reflect superfluous information. Lorenz curve shows the distribution of public sports facilities in the permanent resident population in a graphical way, and it can investigate the proportion of the permanent resident population enjoying the resources of public sports facilities. So it's an extension of the interpretation of Gini coefficient. The above description has been added to 2.2.2. Comment 6：Figures. The fonts need to be unified. Response：Figures and fonts have been unified in accordance with the format requirements. Comment 7：There are some grammar and expression errors, please polish the language in order to better convey your ideas. Response：This article has been polished to make it easier for readers to understand. Response to Reviewers 2 This article provides a framework for the layout of urban public sports facilities. Concentric rings are created for measuring the service scopes at different levels. The Gini coefficient, lorenz curve and location entropy are employed to measure the equity of the distribution among spatial units and the intradistrict disparity. Nevertheless, there are many problems in this paper. The suggestions are given as below: Comment 1： I think that noticeable defects still exist in terms of innovation and its engineering application prospect. First of all, the paper about the introduction has no explanation for the current situation of measuring spatial equity, and there is no elaboration on the equity of sports facilities or the research progress of other public facilities in regions and cities. It also makes the research on the method lack of theoretical basis. The review of the current research emphasizes that the fairness of the spatial distribution of public sports facilities which mainly lies in solving the demand of people, the correlation between the differences in urban public facilities and the relationship between the scale and quantity of public sports facilities. However, the theory is more unconvincing especially in the following 2.2.2 about the Gini coefficient and Lorentz curve proposed. The novelty of the paper is difficult to be put forward on the basis of literature review without comparing with other researchers' previous work, that is, the gaps and novelty of the paper should be clearly emphasized. Response：This paper has re-modified the caontent of literature review in the introduction part， and has reviewed the research on spatial equity of public services again. And what we found was that the research was focused on three aspects: equalization, accessibility and optimized layout of facilities. The subjects included green space, parks, medical facilities, rail transit, and more. At the same time, many quantitative research methods, such as the Gini coefficient and the Lorentz curve, are used. Specific content has been elaborated in the introduction part. Compared with public service facilities, there are relatively few studies on the spatial equity of public sports facilities, especially when it comes to the "spatial matching" between facilities and residents. The research methods are mostly qualitative studies with a certain lag. In other words, the traditional urban public sports facilities planning adopts per capita index to try to ensure that the spatial allocation of public facilities reaches the goal of social equity, but lacks an effective method to evaluate the "spatial matching" of facilities and resident population distribution. In view of this, this paper is based on ArcGIS analysis platform, and using the methods of gini coefficient, lorenz curve and location entropy, trying to construct evaluation system to measure the spatial equity of urban public sports facilities, so that the results can be quantified, visualization, and systemically and universality, in order to provide some reference for the layout planning of public sports facilities in different cities. Comment 2： Figure 1, Calculation diagram of effective service area of public sports facilities. The diagram between the three should not use the same color as far as possible, because the size is relative. Response： Three colors have been used to represent the effective service area of three levels of public sports facilities. Comment 3：In part 2.2.3 of this article, the labeling of the location entropy formula is different from the description in this paper. Response：The interpretation of the location entropy formula in 2.2.3 has been modified. Comment 4： What is the basis for " Usually, when choosing a higher-level facility, residents tend to accept higher time and distance thresholds." on page 7? " defining concentric rings for medical facilities " does not indicate the literature basis. Response：Compared with the lower-level sports facilities, the sports services and functions provided by the higher-level sports facilities are more abundant and complete. According to this, residents have a stronger and specific purpose for travel, and the travel modes will be more diversified. Therefore, when choosing a higher-level facility, residents tend to accept higher time and distance thresholds. To the question of the literature basis of " defining concentric rings for medical facilities ", the corresponding literature is added to explain it. Through the definition of service radius of sports facilities in national standards and the description of travel characteristics in relevant literature, we comprehensively determined our time and distance corresponding to different modes for moving. Comment 5： Where is "Table 3"? Response：Due to a personal oversight, “Table 3” was accidentally deleted during formatting and has been added. Comment 6： Figure 3 and figure 4 are only superposition relations, which have no significance to explain separately. It is suggested that only figure 4 be used to illustrate the problem. Response：We accepted your pertinent suggestions. In order to demonstrate the spatial characteristics of service level of sports facilities at all levels separately, Figure 3 was incorporated into Figure 4 for unified expression, and the content of Figure 4 was emphasized in the figure. Comment 7：The traditional research review in part 4.1 should be included in the introduction. Response：This paper has re-modified the caontent of literature review in the introduction part. This paper discusses the methods used in the study of space equity between public sports facilities and other public service facilities. It is found that there is a big gap in public sports facilities and there are relatively few empirical studies using quantitative methods. Comment 8：This paper uses the cross-sectional data of population in 2017. The reliability and rigor of the data have yet to be agreed. Response：The cross-sectional data of population in 2017 are from the publicly available government data and open data of Internet platform. China's population census is conducted every ten years. In 2017, between the 6th(2010) and 7th(2020) censuses, Hangzhou municipal government conducted a miniature population By-census. The data is made public by the government(https://data.hz.zjzwfw.gov.cn/) and is the latest data before the 7th census is released. However, the public data of the government in 2017 were only counted at the street level. In order to obtain the population data at the community level, this paper needed to rely on Baidu Map Open Platform, and crawl Baidu heat map of the population at night of each season in 2017 for representing the permanent population living in the local. The network data is imported into ArcGIS, and the raster calculator is used for overlay and average calculation to get the final layer data. Finally, combined with the existing population data at the street level, the population of the community unit is determined according to the proportion of the area of heat grid in the community unit to the total area of the street in which the community is located. The main purpose of this study is to build a research framework, so in a way，this method is applicable to measure the scale of community population. Comment 9：The paper draws five conclusions about the impact on the layout of public sports facilities in Hangzhou through the five methods used in the article. Are these five parts overlapping? It needs to be further summarized, which is not mentioned in the conclusion. Response： According to the research design and the research methods used in this paper, the conclusions are modified, elaborated in detail from three levels, and summarized. This paper constructs a complete research framework for evaluating the spatial equity of facilities, which is mainly divided into three levels. Firstly, the quantitative index of sports facilities resource level is obtained by using buffer analysis and superposition analysis. Secondly, Gini coefficient and Lorenz curve are used to reflect the equity of public sports facilities resources in the spatial distribution of the whole resident population. Finally, in order to present the results more finely, the spatial pattern of equity of public sports facilities was analyzed by using location entropy method. The above three levels are layers of progressive relationship, and there is no overlap Thank you again for your positive comments and valuable suggestions to improve the quality of our manuscript ! Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: 20210721Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256174.r004
2 Aug 2021 Decision Letter - Jun Yang, Editor Spatial equity in the layout of urban public sports facilities in Hangzhou PONE-D-21-10518R2 Dear Dr. Ding, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Jun Yang Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Accept Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: (No Response) ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: (No Response) ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: (No Response) ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: (No Response) ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: (No Response) ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: (No Response) ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?** For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256174.r005
Formally Accepted
9 Aug 2021 Acceptance Letter - Jun Yang, Editor PONE-D-21-10518R2 Spatial equity in the layout of urban public sports facilities in Hangzhou Dear Dr. Ding: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Jun Yang Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256174.r006

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .