Spatial Distribution Changes in Nature-Based Recreation Service Supply from 2008 to 2018 in Shanghai, China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The document presented is well written and well structured. The method is correctly applied and the results are interesting. Good work.
Only two recommendations:
1) The bibliographic citations do not comply with the rules of Land journal, since the APA citation is used but without number.
2) On page 11, the mathematical formulas are too close to the text. Please separate them.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Dear Reviewer:
Thank you for your comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Spatial distribution changes in recreation service supply from 2008 to 2018 in Shanghai, China” (ID: land-1931843). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. All revisions to the manuscript are marked up using the “Track Changes” function. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to your comments are as flowing:
Point 1: The bibliographic citations do not comply with the rules of Land journal, since the APA citation is used but without number.
Response 1: Thank you very much for your advice! We have prepared the references with EndNote 20 to avoid mistakes. Also, we carefully revised the bibliographic citations to comply with the rules of Land journal.
Point 2: On page 11, the mathematical formulas are too close to the text. Please separate them.
Response 2: Thank you very much for your suggestion! We have separated the mathematical formulas from the text on page 9-10.
Thank you again for your suggestions and hope to learn more from you.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper constructs an indicator system and uses principal component analysis to quantify the spatial variation in the supply of recreational services in Shanghai, China, from 2008 to 2018 using multiple sources of data. The authors are encouraged to highlight the contribution of the study.
1. The introduction section, the background and significance of the study needs further spotlight. The statement currently made is too broad. It is better to focus on the scientific question, as well as around typical regional types.
2. The review section, which falls only on the changes over time, is a bit far-fetched. It is recommended to further explore the points of this paper.
3. The data is suggested to be further refined. Is it possible to combine Figure 1 and Figure 2, and Figure 3 and Figure 4. Are these figures necessary?
4. From the results, the land use data were shown to have a key role to play. Are the data quality and consistency of land use itself considered? And I suggest to add some cases analysis in the Discussion.
5. The Discussion is a bit broad and needs to be analyzed for the exact problems that exist. If the comparison of different methods is discussed, the results of different methods should be presented and compared.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Dear Reviewer:
Thank you for your comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Spatial distribution changes in recreation service supply from 2008 to 2018 in Shanghai, China” (ID: land-1931843). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. All revisions to the manuscript are marked up using the “Track Changes” function. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to your comments are as flowing:
Point 1: The introduction section, the background and significance of the study needs further spotlight. The statement currently made is too broad. It is better to focus on the scientific question, as well as around typical regional types.
Response 1: Thank you very much for your advice! We have carefully considered your opinion and made changes to the introduction. In the revision, we focus on the spatial distribution characteristics and changes of urban recreation services during rapid urbanization.
Point 2: The review section, which falls only on the changes over time, is a bit far-fetched. It is recommended to further explore the points of this paper.
Response 2: Thank you very much for your suggestion! We have carefully considered your opinion and made changes to the introduction.
Point 3: The data is suggested to be further refined. Is it possible to combine Figure 1 and Figure 2, and Figure 3 and Figure 4. Are these figures necessary?
Response 3: Thank you very much for your suggestion! In the revision, we kept Figure 1 and Figure 2 separate because the two images each carry a lot of information, we were concerned that combining them would make the images less readable. We deleted Figures 3 and 4 because they are really unnecessary.
Point 4: From the results, the land use data were shown to have a key role to play. Are the data quality and consistency of land use itself considered? And I suggest to add some cases analysis in the Discussion.
Response 4: Thank you very much for your suggestion! Our land use data comed from INSTITUTE OF GEOGRAPHIC SCIENCES AND NATURAL RESOURCES RESEARCH，CAS, which was approved by the Chinese Academy of Sciences in September 1999. Many Chinese scholars will use the institute's data, and the quality of the data can be guaranteed. We have added some cases analysis in the Discussion.
Point 5: The Discussion is a bit broad and needs to be analyzed for the exact problems that exist. If the comparison of different methods is discussed, the results of different methods should be presented and compared.
Response 5: Thank you very much for your suggestion! In the discussion section, we have compared the evaluation results of recreation services in different cities.
Thank you again for your suggestions again and hope to learn more from you.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Please see the comments in the pdf file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Dear Reviewer:
Thank you for your comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Spatial distribution changes in recreation service supply from 2008 to 2018 in Shanghai, China” (ID: land-1931843). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. All revisions to the manuscript are marked up using the “Track Changes” function. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to your comments are as flowing:
Point 1: Title - Does this relate to recreation services of natural areas? If so that should be stated in the title
Response 1: Thank you very much for your advice! Yes, the type of recreation that we approached in this study is the so-called nature-based recreation, outdoor recreation or soft ecotourism. In the revision, we put 'nature-based' in the title.
Point 2: Introduction - Paragraph 1 - Again, we can exclusively. Of course, there are different types of land cover as you specified in Table 1, and their recreation potential differ.
Response 2: Thank you very much for your suggestion! Yes, we discussed about ES for natural areas.
Point 3: Introduction - Paragraph 6 - Why 2018 and not more recent period? The data would be more updated if including 2022.
Response 3: Thank you very much for your suggestion! Because the outbreak of COVID-19 in early 2020 May have a great impact on city POI data, we chose the data before 2020.
Point 4: Materials and Methods - Paragraph 1 – 6,340 and superscript
Response 4: Thank you very much for your suggestion! We have corrected the error here and checked for similar errors.
Point 5: Materials and Methods – Table 1 – I would. The first one with RP only and the second one with RO only. Below each table you should provide a brief description of elements.
Response 5: Thank you very much for your suggestion! In the revision, we adjusted the structure of the Materials and Methods section. Also, we split the table into two and added a brief description of elements.
Point 6: Materials and Methods - Table 1 - What was the reason for choosing Euclidian distance and then Kernel density?
Response 6: Thank you very much for your advice! Because Euclidian distance and Kernel density are the two most common ways to describe. And through literature reading, we found that many similar studies also used Euclidian distance and Kernel density.
Point 7: Materials and Methods – Figure 3, 4 - I believe the Figure is a bit overloaded. For the purpose of this paper I would choose the following analysis a,b,c and g.h,i. and exclude d,e,f. I would suggest merging Figure 3 and Fugure 4 in way that "Population density" in 2008 and "Population density" in the next period are one next to the other to make the comparison easier.
Response 7: Thank you very much for your suggestion! These are good ideas. However, we deleted Figures 3 and 4 because they seemed to be unnecessary.
Point 8: Results - Figure 5 - can you make an "overlap" map?
Response 8: Thank you very much for your suggestion! It’s a good idea! However, we decided not to modify it because the two pictures have much information, and we are afraid that the information will be lost after overlapping.
Point 9: Results - Figure 8 - This are low quality, low resolution maps..
Response 9: Thank you very much for your suggestion! We deleted Figures 8 because it seemed to be unnecessary and low quality.
Point 10: Results - Figure 10 – This graph is unclear. How come you have all scenarios in all regions?
Response 10: Thank you very much for your suggestion! We obtained this figure by calculating the difference between the supply of recreation services in 2018 and 2008 in GIS.
Point 11: Conclusion - Can you make a conclusion in a broader format? How this reflects to city dwellers? What about other recreation facilities, open gyms, etc. that are not natural elements of a city landscape.
Response 11: Thank you very much for your suggestion! We have revised the conclusion according to your suggestions.
Thank you again for your suggestions sincerely and hope to learn more from you.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
The article presents a very important issue, which is mapping the supply of recreation in a highly urbanized area such as Shanghai. The research is dynamic. The adopted research methods and tools do not raise any objections. The article is comprehensive. It contains all the necessary elements, including recommendations for further actions identified on the basis of the conducted research. The article is very interesting and suitable for publication.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 4 Comments
Dear Reviewer:
Thank you for your warm work and positive suggestions earnestly concerning our manuscript entitled “Spatial distribution changes in recreation service supply from 2008 to 2018 in Shanghai, China” (ID: land-1931843).
Thank you again and hope to learn more from you.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
I could not confirm that the authors have responded to each of my comments. I suggest that the authors clearly list the changes.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Dear Reviewer:
Thank you for your comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Spatial distribution changes in recreation service supply from 2008 to 2018 in Shanghai, China” (ID: land-1931843). We are very sorry that we did not clearly list the changes in the first cover letter. We sincerely hope that this reply can clearly explain our revisions. All revisions to the manuscript are marked up using the “Track Changes” function. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to your comments are as flowing:
Point 1: The introduction section, the background and significance of the study needs further spotlight. The statement currently made is too broad. It is better to focus on the scientific question, as well as around typical regional types.
Response 1: Thank you very much for your advice! In the revision, we added the background in paragraph 5 that rapid urbanization significantly affects all ecosystem services, including recreation services, are spatially heterogeneous due to urban expansion and population movement. Also, in paragraph 2 and 3, we concluded that more and more studies use the framework of recreation potential and recreation opportunity to assess and map the recreation supply as another important background. In paragraph 4, we pointed out the significance of the study that mapping urban recreation services is an important basis for studying the spatial heterogeneity and equity of recreation services. In paragraph 5, we listed the questions to be solved that (1) Are there differences in the provision of recreational ecosystem services be-tween urban centers, peri-urban areas and rural areas in rapidly urbanizing cities? (2) What are the spatio-temporal changes in the supply of urban recreation services during the rapid urbanization process? (3) What factors cause the spatio-temporal changes of recreation service supply?
Point 2: The review section, which falls only on the changes over time, is a bit far-fetched. It is recommended to further explore the points of this paper.
Response 2: Thank you very much for your suggestion! In the paragraph 4, we concluded that some studies evaluated the provision of recreational services in a certain area of the city, such as the city center, the peri-urban and the rural areas, and other studies measured the recreation service supply of different types of land, such as forests, urban parks, urban remnant mountain wilderness, urban river, oceans, farmlands and so on. Recreation services are closely related to the health and well-being of every urban resident. However, few studies have been conducted to measure the supply of recreational ecosystem services in the whole city. So, our study focused on the spatial heterogeneity and spatiotemporal changes in the distribution of recreation services in rapidly urbanizing cities.
Point 3: The data is suggested to be further refined. Is it possible to combine Figure 1 and Figure 2, and Figure 3 and Figure 4. Are these figures necessary?
Response 3: Thank you very much for your suggestion! In the revision, we kept Figure 1 and Figure 2 separate because the two images each carry a lot of information. Figure 1 showed the location of Shanghai and the 10 administrative regions, and Figure 1 showed the land use patterns of Shanghai in 2008 and 2018. We were concerned that combining them would make the images less readable. Also, we deleted Figures 3 and 4 because they didn't seem to help explain the results and be really unnecessary.
Point 4: From the results, the land use data were shown to have a key role to play. Are the data quality and consistency of land use itself considered? And I suggest to add some cases analysis in the Discussion.
Response 4: Thank you very much for your suggestion! Our land use data comed from the INSTITUTE OF GEOGRAPHIC SCIENCES AND NATURAL RESOURCES RESEARCH，CAS, which was approved by the Chinese Academy of Sciences in September 1999. So the data quality and consistency of land use were reliable. We have added some cases analysis in the Discussion and founded that the change of land use caused by rapid urbanization has indeed led to the spatial heterogeneity of recreation service supply.
Point 5: The Discussion is a bit broad and needs to be analyzed for the exact problems that exist. If the comparison of different methods is discussed, the results of different methods should be presented and compared.
Response 5: Thank you very much for your suggestion! In the discussion section, we analysed the problem that ‘Are there temporal-spatial distribution changes in the supply of recreation services between urban centers, peri-urban areas and rural areas in Shanghai?’. And we compared the evaluation results of recreation services in other rapidly urbanizing cities. We discussed that the recreation supply of the city center – the peri-urban - rural areas showed a ‘V-shaped gradient’ in Shanghai. The supply of recreation service in the peri-urban areas of Shanghai was lower than that in the city center and the rural areas, and it was still decreasing over the past decade. This was due to Shanghai's rapid urban expansion, which taken up a large amount of farmland in the peri-urban areas, and the incomplete recreation related infrastructure. Previous studies also reached similar conclusions. Cai et al. discussed the spatial characteristics of ecosystem services in Nanchang City, China under the urban-rural gradient change, and found that along the urban-rural gradient, the recreation opportunity in the main urban area showed a "V-shaped" gradient change. Dobbs et al. evaluated the ES in Bogota and Santiago for a 30-year period with remote sensing data, models and census data. They found that recreation potential increased in the city center areas and decreased at the peri-urban areas, reflecting increase population and unplanned urban sprawling. Li et al. separated Nanjing city, China into three urbanization categories (developing urban, developed urban, and rural areas) and quantified the status of recreation potential between 2000 and 2010. The results showed that urbanization significantly impacted all ecosystem services, with detected changes in ecosystem services being spatially heterogeneous due to population mobility and urban expansion. And in 2010, recrea-tion potential was highest in rural areas and lowest in urban areas
Thank you for your suggestions again and hope to learn more from you!
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript has been significantly improved, and congratulations to the authors on that. I have a few minor (technical) edits:
- Line 20 - two dots, erase one of them
- Line 54 - instead of the authors' names you should list a number in square brackets.
- 2.4. section formulas and corresponding numbers (1)-(5) should be placed differently. Please check the instructions for authors
- Table 4 and Figure 7 seem redundant.
- Reference list: not all citations are given correctly. Caps lock for journals' names, instead of regular letters, etc. You might consider using zotero or some other reference citation app.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Dear Reviewer:
Thank you for your comments and encouragement concerning our manuscript entitled “Spatial distribution changes in recreation service supply from 2008 to 2018 in Shanghai, China” (ID: land-1931843). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. All revisions to the manuscript are marked up using the “Track Changes” function. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to your comments are as flowing:
Point 1: Line 20 - two dots, erase one of them
Response 1: Thank you very much for your careful advice! We have deleted one of the two dots.
Point 2: Line 54 - instead of the authors' names you should list a number in square brackets.
Response 2: Thank you very much for your suggestion! We have changed ‘Burkhard et al. (2009)’ to ‘Researchers’ and listed a number in square brackets at the end of the sentence.
Point 3: 2.4. section formulas and corresponding numbers (1)-(5) should be placed differently. Please check the instructions for authors
Response 3: Thank you very much for your suggestion! We have revised the format of the formulas (1)-(10) by referring to the ‘Microsoft Word template’ downloaded from the instructions for authors.
Point 4: Table 4 and Figure 7 seem redundant.
Response 4: Thank you very much for your suggestion! In the revision, we retained Table 4 and Figure 7 because they showed the specific area and proportion of recreation supply increased, decreased and maintained in each region. And we found that among the areas with increased recreation supply, almost half of them were located in Chongming District, while areas with decreased recreation supply were mainly concentrated in Jiading District, Pudong District and Songjiang District. So that we can identified areas that need to focus on improving recreation service.
Point 5: Reference list: not all citations are given correctly. Caps lock for journals' names, instead of regular letters, etc. You might consider using zotero or some other reference citation app.
Response 5: Thank you very much for your suggestion! In the revision, we used Endnote 20 to revise the references according to the Instructions for Authors.
Thank you again for your suggestions and encouragement sincerely and hope to learn more from you.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
