PONE-D-24-39146-->-->Is All Greenspace Created Equal? Assessing the impact of public parks and greenness on academic achievement in Washington State-->-->PLOS ONE?>

Dear Dr. Fortmann,

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 Apr 18 2025 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.. 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.. 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.. 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.

• 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: https://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 . 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 . 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 . 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,

Giulia Squillacioti

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. In your Methods section, please include additional information about your dataset and ensure that you have included a statement specifying whether the collection and analysis method complied with the terms and conditions for the source of the data.

3. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process.

4. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain map/satellite 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 Figure 1 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/

[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?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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.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: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript which explores the association between school proximity to public parks and academic performance using fixed effects analysis with five-year panel data.

Overall, the manuscript makes an interesting contribution to the growing literature on access to parks, greenery and academic performance.

I have some general comments followed by some more specific ones.

The content of the manuscript requires some rearranging in line with the typical layout of a scientific manuscript. In particular the study results should not be described in under ‘I Introduction’ (as they are currently described on page 4). Much of the latter part of the ‘Introduction’ from the last paragraph on page 3 onwards belongs in the Discussion section towards the end of the manuscript.

I have now read that “PLOS ONE waives all formatting requirements until your manuscript has received a provisional Editorial Accept decision.” I still consider it more standard to have an Introduction that describes background, rationale and aims for the study; then a Methods section; followed by a Results section, separate from a Discussion section. Results should not be described in the Introduction.

The benefits of parks for children and adolescents are described throughout the manuscript. At some point the role of parks as a setting for being physically active should be described. Whilst the current study does not examine physical activity (PA) it is important to acknowledge that some beneficial associations between parks and academic performance may have pathways via PA. Positive associations have been shown between PA and academic performance, although not all findings are consistent (e.g. see Marques et al., 2017).

Marques A, Santos DA, Hillman CH, Sardinha LB. How does academic achievement relate to cardiorespiratory fitness, self-reported physical activity and objectively reported physical activity: a systematic review in children and adolescents aged 6–18 years. British journal of sports medicine. 2017;52(16):1039.

Abstract

Please include “, USA” after “western Washington state”.

Page 2-3

It would be good to include some studies from beyond the USA. For example, significant associations have been found between surrounding greenery and performance in national standardized school tests in Australia:

1. Carver A, Molina MA, Claesen JLA, Klabbers G, Donaire D, Gonzalez, et al. Vegetation and vehicle emissions around primary schools across urban Australia: associations with academic performance. Environmental Research. 2022:113256.

2. Claesen JLA, Wheeler AJ, Klabbers G, Gonzalez DD, Molina MA, Tham R, et al. Associations of traffic-related air pollution and greenery with academic outcomes among primary schoolchildren. Environmental research. 2021:111325.

II Data and Methods

Page 5, second paragraph

Please include references for county and city parks and recreation department websites.

“We also assess the overall greenness of the area surrounding the school at various buffer distances…”

Please describe the buffer distances.

Page 6, paragraph 2

“We also include a number of student and school controls in our analysis including race, gender, income, and teacher quality variables”.

Please replace “controls” with “covariates”.

How was “low-income” defined?

Please be consistent when describing the buffer radius, i.e. either 800 m or half a mile; please do not use them interchangeably.

Table 1 (should be in Results section)

Include values for NDVI, e.g. mean and standard deviation or median and range.

Table 2 (should be in Results section)

Rather than “(dummy)” after “Park 800m”, it would be clearer to write “Park within 800m”.

Last sentence of section III appears to be missing a final word:

“If parks are more likely to have greater tree cover, then these results coincide with our findings that tree covered parks have a stronger relationship with”.

Reviewer #2: I indicated that the statistical analysis was not performed rigorously because it appears that the authors want to make a causal inference, and I don't think that the methods support this. The methods may be rigorous enough if they are wanting to make different conclusions, and perhaps added additional control variables. More details below:

This paper examines the relation for greenspace around schools to academic achievement at the school level. The paper utilizes multiple metrics of greenspace to determine that schools that have a public park located within ½ mile radius have higher student achievement levels than do schools without a park in the ½ mile radius. This relation was found only among middle schools but not among elementary or high schools. Greenspace as measured by the NDVI was not associated with student achievement.

Overall, I found the paper to be interesting but felt that the description of the findings and conclusions were not completely in line with the analysis methodology used.

The authors use causal language describing ‘impact’ of greenspace throughout the paper. Based on my understanding of their methods, I don’t think that any causal conclusions can be drawn.

The inclusion of multiple measures of greenness and various control variables is a strength of the study as the authors discuss, but I wonder why other school neighborhood variables were not included. It seems that including these would be necessary to advancing the argument that parks, rather than neighborhood resources more generally, are related to achievement.

Associations between school racial/ethnic composition and school achievement are presented without discussion of systemic racism as a reason for these differences.

Analyses were done predicting school level aggregates of achievement, but findings are discussed in terms of how parks might impact individual children’s behavior. Is this a correct interpretation of results? Have the authors considered whether this may be an example of the ecological fallacy?

Additionally, I was surprised that the authors described the results of their study in the introduction. This may be a disciplinary difference.

**********

what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). 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 For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our 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 . 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 . 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 . 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.. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PONE-D-24-39146R1-->-->Is all greenspace created equal? Assessing the relationship of public parks and greenness on academic achievement in Washington, USA-->-->PLOS ONE?>

Dear Dr. Fortmann,

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 06 2025 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.. 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.. 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.. 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.

• 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 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: https://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 . 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 . 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 . 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,

Giulia Squillacioti

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

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.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??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: Thank you for the opportunity to review this revised manuscript. Overall, the manuscript is much improved and I am s satisfied with the authors responses to my comments.

I have noticed a couple of points requiring attention before publication:

Line 246 I think this should say ‘Table 3’ rather than ‘Table 2’.

Line 255 Please check whether the percent level is correct - should it say ‘23’ instead of ‘10’?

Reviewer #2: The authors have done a nice job of responding to most of the questions raised in the first review of the manuscript. A few original comments may warrant further attention, and their revision has raised a few new questions.

Lines 113-114 . Unclear what is meant by “to account for more rural areas in western Washington counties, we include rural and urban school district data…”. Earlier the authors say they focus on western Washington state because of its urban nature.

In my first review, I had suggested including other neighborhood level characteristics as controls. The authors stated that this was not possible due to data limitations. I may not be fully understanding the limitations of the available data, but it still seems to me that it would be possible to use publicly available census data to capture neighborhood level socioeconomic characteristics within the buffers created for the NDVI by using weighted averages of census tract variables. I recognize, however, that the authors may have conceptual or other methodological reasons for not controlling other neighborhood level variables.

The authors state that there is not substantial variation in greenness among the schools. If there is not substantial variation in greenness among the schools, then is it meaningful to examine associations of greenness with academic performance? It seems problematic to conclude that NDVI is not related to academic performance in a study where there is limited variation in greenness among schools. This seems to be a major limitation. The authors do mention that this may also have implications for the generalizability of these findings; they may want to consider moving this information to the limitations section.

Results- It would be helpful to contextualize the percentages presented as effect sizes or in some other relevant way.

Assessment test outcomes are not well described in the materials and methods section. Why is the outcome dichotomous rather than a categorical measure of achievement that would capture more variation (i.e., separating out meets and exceeds expectations)?

Lines 241 - ‘seems to be more important’ – has a bigger impact in?

Lines 242 – ‘more significant’ – does this mean smaller p-value or larger magnitude of impact?

The results section includes discussion of the results as well. This information could be moved to the discussion section.

In the conclusion, the authors describe “a decline in academic performance”. Do they mean lower academic performance or a decline?. The authors also refer to ‘racial and socioeconomic classes’ ; that terminology seems problematic.

I agree that there does not need to be a full discussion paragraph on the potential drivers of the socioeconomic and racial disparities findings. However, as the racial disparities in test scores are highlighted throughout the manuscript, including in the conclusions section, I think that it is appropriate to add a phrase or sentence contextualizing or explaining those findings.

**********

what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). 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 For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our 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.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

PONE-D-24-39146R2-->-->Is all greenspace created equal? Assessing the relationship of public parks and greenness on academic achievement in Washington, USA-->-->PLOS One?>

Dear Dr. Fortmann,

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 Apr 30 2026 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.. 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.. 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.. 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.

• A 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 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: https://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 . 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 . 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 . 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,

Giulia Squillacioti

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Journal Requirements:

1. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

2. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

Please address the comments raised by the Reviewer #3

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #3: 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.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 #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

Reviewer #3: The authors have effectively addressed reviewer responses. I did note a couple of issues that should be corrected before publication and I raise one substantive issue that I ask the authors to consider:

Pg 6, referring to line 116 - there is a comment in the margins that says "While the study area includes only urban counties, our sample includes both rural and urban school districts from the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) [23]. Thus, our findings pertain to access to park in both rural and urban areas." That seems to be a more clear way of articulating this point and responding to the reviewer's concern, with perhaps a simple edit - "While the study area includes only urban counties, there are both urban and rural school districts (by definition of ...(NCES) in these counties. Thus, our findings pertain to access to parks in both rural and urban areas.

Line 146 Table 1 - this isn't a big deal, but it would improve clarity and avoid confusion if the table were divided into two sections (upper for data that are numbers with a relevant column heading - not means and SDs, and lower with the means and SDs heading for data relevant to representing means and SDs. )

Line 224 - "within a half mile" is a different unit of measurement than 800 meters, but it is a helpful one for audiences that think in miles not km. Perhaps just parenthetically noting the equivalence, like "...having a public park within a half mile radius (800 meters) of a school...."

Line 316 - I believe the authors missed changing this to 4.2

Line 373 - 376 - by saying "the latter" it seems you are saying that your results represented a negative relationship as opposed to no relationship. The use of the dichotomous former/latter way of speaking doesn't work when you want to refer to something that is the middle and third option.

Limitations section - A commonly discussed limitation of the use of NDVI in buffers is that it represents data "as the crow flies" and does not account for potential lack of access to that green space by, for example a highway, fencing, etc. Driving/walking routes to that greenspace are often used to address this. I'm not suggesting that data be re-analyzed, but it would be helpful to note in the Limitations section that NDVI "as the crow flies" does have its drawbacks.

Discussion- I understand that NDVI was a control for this study, not the focus of the analysis with outcome data, and that NDVI data was not disparate from that documented in past studies. But, it would help to note in the discussion that your finding of no NDVI/outcome relationship is in contrast to some previous findings, even those studies with similar amount of greenness, but overall is consistent with the mixed results in the literature.

This is my substantive suggestion for consideration:

Bottom of pg 12 - there is increasing interest in testing the equigenic effect - when children from lower SES backgrounds (as measures by family, school or community economic data) benefit RELATIVELY MORE from nature than children from higher SES backgrounds. It seems that lines 240 - 242 only tell part of the important story. Is it possible to analyze the middle school data stratified by a relevant SES variable, rather than simply controlling for it?

**********

what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). 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 For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy..-->

Reviewer #3: Yes: Catherine JordanCatherine JordanCatherine JordanCatherine Jordan

**********

[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.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

Is all greenspace created equal? Assessing the relationship of public parks and greenness on academic achievement in Washington, USA

PONE-D-24-39146R3

Dear Dr. Fortmann,

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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support....

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,

Giulia Squillacioti

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: