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

This paper proposes a framework for a layout evaluation of urban public sports facilities. First, the buffer analysis method is used to measure the service level of public sports facilities. The study findings indicate that the overall service level of public sports facilities presents the spatial characteristics of a central agglomeration, and the value of the service level diffuses outward from high to low. There is evident spatial heterogeneity in the layout of public sports facilities in Hangzhou. Second, the Gini coefficient, Lorenz curve, and location entropy are employed to measure the equity of the distribution among spatial units and the intradistrict disparity. The results show a mismatch between the spatial distribution of the facilities and the distribution of the permanent population. The patterns of distribution of the location entropy classes of Hangzhou can be divided into three types: balanced, alternating, and divergent districts. The method in this paper is effective in measuring spatial equity and visualizing it. it has a certain degree of systemicity, universality and operability. At the same time, this method can compare the diachronic characteristics of the same city and the synchronic characteristics of different cities, which has universal application value.

1. Introduction

Urban space is both the physical carrier of socioeconomic development and human activities and an important determinant factor in the allocation of various resources and interests [1]. Reasonable planning of public sports facilities improves the urban space layout and facilitates the self-optimization and healthy development of an urban system [2]. As an important part of urban space, sports facilities’ resources have typical social public attributes [3]. Given the significant trend in the social spatial differentiation pattern, issues related to the optimal allocation of facilities within the scope of social equity and justice have attracted significant attention from governments at all levels and all walks of life.

Equity and justice are the core values of urban planning. Influenced by the concept of spatial justice, research on the spatial equity of public service facilities has become an important research topic in the field of urban planning. Since accessibility was first proposed by Hansen [4], it has become an important indicator of the performance evaluation of equity and justice of facilities. Related content mainly focuses on the relationship between accessibility and residents’ economic and social status or social needs [5-7]. For example, Omer built a spatial equity research framework for evaluating the accessibility of urban parks based on house-level census data and used the buffer method in ArcGIS [8]; Chen et al. based on the perspective of spatial equity, calculated the spatial distribution of the choice opportunities for citizens to enjoy green park space by measuring the service scope [9]. Accessibility is a commonly used tool to measure the spatial equity of public service facilities; however, most studies do not positively discuss the specific degree of equity of public service facilities’ accessibility, especially the lack of comparisons of different spatial scales. Subsequently, a large number of scholars conducted research on spatial equity based on the concept of “spatial matching.” Both Delbosc and Welch used the Lorentz curve and Gini coefficient methods to analyze the equity situation of public transportation resources [10, 11]. On this basis, Tang analyzed the social equity performance of rail transit and used the location entropy method to conduct a spatial visualization analysis of fairness [12]. Yang et al. introduced the social demand index and combined it with the coefficient of accessibility variation to further explain the issue of spatial equality [13].

In contrast, residents’ health and sports activities are significantly correlated with the location, scale, and number of public sports facilities; therefore, the value of equity research is prominent. However, few relevant studies have been published and mainly reflect three aspects: equalization, accessibility, and optimized layout of facilities. First, the equalization research of sports facilities is divided into two dimensions: facility supply and enjoyment [14]. In terms of supply, scholars have studied the main body of the supply and governance mode of sports facilities and the spatial differences in the distribution of the facilities themselves [15, 16]. In terms of enjoyment, scholars focus on studying the use of facilities by different groups in society. Liu found through a field investigation that sports facilities in England were not proportionally matched to the population [17]. Second, in terms of accessibility, the research mainly focuses on the correlation analysis between accessibility and other factors [18]. Karen et al. used both the minimum-distance and coverage methods to investigate the relationship between playground accessibility and the population and social needs in Edmonton and to assess whether the location and quality of playground facilities are equitable [19]. Cutumisu et al. used the two-step floating catchment area method to study the association between the accessibility of sports venues and residents’ physical activities [20]. Higgs et al. used the FCA model to measure the relationship between the accessibility of sports facilities and the level of regional development [21]. Finally, in the research on the layout optimization of facilities, scholars mainly solved the configuration and spatial layout of sports facilities from the perspective of urban planning management and urban policy [22-26].

Although research on the spatial equity of urban public facilities has already involved “space matching” between facilities and residents, research in this field on sports facilities is scarce, and the research methods are usually qualitative in nature, which has a certain hysteresis quality. In other words, traditional urban public sports facilities planning adopts a per capita index to attempt to ensure that the spatial allocation of public facilities reaches the goal of social equity, but it lacks an effective method to evaluate the “spatial matching” of facilities and resident population distribution. Therefore, this paper is based on the ArcGIS analysis platform and uses the Gini coefficient, Lorenz curve, and location entropy methods to construct an evaluation system to measure the spatial equity of urban public sports facilities to systemically and universally quantify and visualize the results to provide some reference for the layout planning of public sports facilities in different cities.

2. Methods and data

2.1. Research objects

Urban public sports facilities refer to a variety of venues, equipment, buildings, outdoor recreation spaces, and related services in cities (towns) that urban residents use for day-to-day exercise and related activities to meet their health and wellness needs. The sports facilities studied in this paper do not include public open spaces, such as citizens’ urban squares, parks, green spaces, and waterfronts along rivers and lakes.

2.2. Research methods

2.2.1. Measurement of service levels

The ratio between the total effective service coverage area within a spatial unit and the total area of the spatial unit is used as the quantitative indicator of the service level provided by public sports facilities allocated within the unit [27]. The formula to calculate the ratio is as follows:

In the formula, LDj denotes the service level provided by the public sports facilities in spatial unit j; Mj is the total effective area served by all public sports facilities, namely, the total volume of public sports facilities; and Aj denotes the total area of spatial unit j.

The effective service coverage areas of public sports facilities are determined using the buffer zones, as shown in Fig 1) different classes of public sports facilities are assigned different radii for their service ranges; 2) the effective service coverage areas of various classes of public sports facilities are created through the multiple ring buffer tool in ArcGIS; and 3) different classes of sports facilities and their service coverage, indicated by concentric rings, have heterogeneous service effects; therefore, different weights are assigned to each when calculating the effective service coverage area. The following principles are considered when determining the effective service area: 1) when calculating the effective service coverage area, the areas within a spatial unit that receive services from sports facilities located outside of the spatial unit are included in the calculation of this spatial unit’s effective service coverage area; and 2) if the service coverage areas of two sports facilities overlap, then the overlapping area is determined by an overlay calculation.

Fig 1

Calculation diagram of effective service area of public sports facilities.

2.2.2. Gini coefficient and Lorenz curve

The Lorenz curve was first proposed by American statistician Lorenz MO in 1905 to compare the equity of wealth distribution in a region at different times or in different regions at the same time [28]. The principle is to rank the population in order of income from lowest to highest, with the cumulative percentage of population on the X-axis and the cumulative percentage of income on the Y-axis. Based on this, the curve is drawn, and the diagonal from the origin to the end of the coordinate is the absolutely mean line. The more the curve deviates from the absolutely mean line, the more unequal the income distribution. The Gini coefficient was first proposed by Italian economist Gini C in 1912. On the basis of the Lorentz curve, the principle is to calculate the ratio of the area enclosed by the absolutely mean line and the curve to the area enclosed by the absolutely mean line and the two axes. The greater the value, the more unequal the wealth distribution [29]. In a word, the Lorentz curve is a visual representation of equality, while the Gini coefficient is a simple mathematical measure of overall inequality.

Because the essence of equity in income distribution is, to a certain extent, similar to that of equity in public resource distribution, Lorentz curve and Gini coefficient are often used in the equity research of public transportation [10, 30, 31] and green space [12], and achieved good results in exploring the equity. Therefore, public sports facilities as a part of public resources, we apply the Gini coefficient to measure equity and generate a Lorenz curve for visual presentation and analysis. First, the Gini coefficient is developed as a quantitative indicator for spatial equity in the distribution of public sports facilities, as shown in the following formula:

In the formula, P denotes the proportion of the permanent population, where k = 1……n, P = 0, P = 1, and R is the proportion of effective service coverage of public sports facilities, where k = 1……n, R = 0, and R = 1. A smaller Gini coefficient results in a more equitable spatial allocation of sports facilities among all permanent residents. Typically, degrees of equity can be classified into five categories, as shown in Table 1.

Table 1

Gini coefficient classification table.

Gini coefficient value	The general meaning
< 0.2	Absolutely equitable
0.2–0.3	Comparative equitable
0.3–0.4	Relatively reasonable
0.4–0.5	difference
> 0.5	Significant difference

Second, all of the spatial units within the study area are ranked in descending order based on public sports facilities per capita. The total permanent population is divided into intervals, with each interval containing 10% of the total permanent population; the proportion of public sports facilities utilized by each population interval is calculated and is represented by the Lorentz curve. The Lorenz curve graphically shows the distribution of public sports facilities among all permanent residents and can investigate the proportion of the permanent resident population enjoying the resources of public sports facilities. Therefore, it is an extension of the interpretation of the Gini coefficient.

2.2.3. Location entropy

The Location entropy was first proposed by Haggett P and applied in location analysis. Its connotation is the ratio between the proportion of an industrial sector in a certain region in the national industrial sector and the proportion of the whole industry in the region in the national industrial sector [32]. It is often used to measure the spatial distribution state of a certain production factor in a region and the degree of industrial specialization. This method is not only applied in the fields related to economy, but also gradually involved in the study of spatial equity [33, 34].

The Gini coefficient and the Lorentz curve are used to measure the overall level of spatial equity, while location entropy can better display the specific spatial distribution pattern of equity. Therefore, this paper uses location entropy to analyze the spatial characteristics of spatial equity of sports facilities. The location entropy for each spatial unit is the ratio between the per capita service coverage area in the unit and the per capita service coverage area in the entire study area, as shown in formula 3:

In the formula, LQ denotes the location entropy of spatial unit j; T is the effective service coverage area within spatial unit j; P is the total population within spatial unit j; T is the effective service coverage area within the study area; and P is the total population of the study area. If a spatial unit has a location entropy greater than 1, then the unit’s per capita service provided by public sports facilities is higher than that of the study area, and vice versa.

2.3. Data sources

The study region is Hangzhou, China, which includes six districts with relatively well developed and maintained urban infrastructure: Shangcheng, Xiacheng, Gongshu, Xihu, Jianggan, and Binjiang. Based on 2017 statistics, the study region has a total land area of 707.59 kilometers and a total population of 4,412,855. The region contains 49 urban subdistricts (towns) and 637 communities. The geographic center of the population distribution in each spatial unit is used as the center to divide the city into concentric rings. The area within five kilometers of the center is the central ring; the area within 5 to 10 kilometers is the transition ring; and the area beyond 10 kilometers is the suburban ring.

The 2017 cross-sectional data of population are from the publicly available government data and the open Internet platform. Because China’s population census is conducted every ten years, 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/). A census of Hangzhou which is 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 2017 data are the most recent available before the 7th census is released. However, the 2017 public data of the government were only counted at the street level. To obtain population data at the community level, this paper relied on the heat map of the Baidu Map Open Platform. 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 the heat grid in the community unit to the total area of the street in which the community is located; in this paper, the map image of Hangzhou comes from the National Platform for Common Geospatial Information Services (https://www.tianditu.gov.cn/), a public welfare service website and does not involve copyright.

The data on public sports facilities are extracted from the 2017 point of interest (POI) data in AutoNavi Maps, 2017 aerial images in Google Earth, and the 2017 Statistics for Sports Venues and Facilities in Zheiang Province. Although urban public sports facilities have access to the latest data, their 2017 data are still used to be consistent with the population data. The main purpose of this paper is to establish an evaluation framework. Therefore, although there is a gap of 3 years between the data used in 2017 and reality, the data in this paper should still be applicable to method construction.

“Sports and leisure facilities” are selected from the above POIs and then compared with satellite images. Invalid and repetitive POIs are eliminated, and the facilities of colleges and universities, polytechnic schools, and high schools are added. As a result, a database of 181 data items is developed. Furthermore, the facilities are classified into three categories: provincial (city) level (n = 7), district level (n = 13), and subdistrict level (n = 161).

2.4. Evaluation model

A model is developed to study the spatial equity in the distribution of sports facilities, as shown in Fig 2. In the first step of the evaluation, concentric rings are created to measure the service scopes of public sports facilities at different levels. Then, the service level provided by the public sports facilities in each spatial unit is measured, a chart is created to show public sports facilities’ spatial distribution of service levels, and the overall service level is calculated by overlaying the services provided by all levels of sports facilities. An analysis of the service level differences among the concentric rings is performed. The second step involves the following procedures: the Gini coefficient is applied to intuitively present the distribution of public sports facilities among permanent residents; a Lorenz curve is developed to visually demonstrate the spatial equity; a location entropy is employed to measure equity in the distribution among spatial units; and the spatial units are classified into five service levels based on the location entropy—“extremely low, low, medium, high, and extremely high”—to analyze the service level differences between the concentric rings and the intradistrict disparity.

Fig 2

Research model.

Sports facilities’ service scopes are an important indicator for measuring accessibility to and disparities in the service level of these facilities. Residents who choose different public facilities also choose different modes for moving around a city (walking, bicycling, and taking public transit), and the time and distance that are acceptable for residents regarding moving around the city also differ. Usually, when choosing a higher-level facility, residents tend to accept higher time and distance thresholds. The time and distance involved with different modes of transportation are identified (Table 2) with assistance from the normative requirements for sports facilities in the national standards that is Standard for urban public service facilities planning (GB50442-2015) and different travel characteristics [35].

Table 2

Time and distance corresponding to different modes for moving.

Modes for moving	Time/minute	Distance/meter
Walking 1M/s	5	300
	10	600
	15	900
Bicycling 2.3 M/s	5	700
	10	1400
	15	2100
Taking public transit 15 Km/h	10	2500
	20	5000
	30	7500

Distance is a criterion for measuring the service capacity of public sports facilities. The closer residents are to a sports facility, the more they benefit from the facility. Therefore, based on the comprehensive consideration of facility levels and their service coverage range, scores are assigned to the three concentric rings for various service levels provided by public sports facilities, as shown in Table 3. A higher-level facility has a higher score, and a shorter distance to a facility also results in a higher score.

Table 3

Service radius and evaluation standard of public sports facilities at all levels.

Facility level	Service radius (meter)	Evaluation criterion
The street level	< 300	3
	300–600	2
	600–900	1
District level	< 700	6
	700–1400	4
	1400–2100	2
Province city level	< 2500	9
	2500–5000	6
	5000–7500	3

3. Results

3.1. Service level analysis

3.1.1. Spatial distribution of the service level of public sports facilities

The service level of sports facilities in each spatial unit is obtained through measurements. A chart showing the spatial distribution of different levels of sports facilities in Hangzhou was created using ArcGIS software (Fig 3). Based on the statistics and spatial analysis, the following conclusions are drawn.

Fig 3

Spatial distribution of effective service coverage range and service level of sports facilities in Hangzhou: (A) Spatial distribution of effective service scope and service level of public sports facilities at province(city)-level; (B) Spatial distribution of effective service scope and service level of public sports facilities at District-level; (C) Spatial distribution of effective service scope and service level of public sports facilities at Subdistrict-level; (D) Spatial distribution and rings distribution of overall effective service scope and service level of public sports facilities. Source: Created by the author based on the base map of Hangzhou which comes from the National Platform for Common Geospatial Information Services (https://www.tianditu.gov.cn/).

As indicated in Fig 3A, provincial (city)-level public sports facilities only account for 3.87% of all sports facilities in Hangzhou; however, given the large service range, their coverage is very wide. Based on a service range of 7,500 meters, this class of facilities covers an area of 515.53 km2, that is, 72.89% of the study area. The service level of provincial (city)-level facilities is high in the city center and low on the east and west sides. Service-level peaks are mainly located at lakefront areas along the border of Xiacheng District and Shangcheng District, in the portion of Wulin District that borders Xihu District, and along both sides of Tianmushan Road and the elevated portion of Zhonghe Road, forming a cross-shaped peak service zone. This configuration indicates that the service level provided by provincial (city)-level facilities clusters around city centers; residents living within these zones can fully enjoy these facilities, but residents outside of the zones benefit little from them. The major reason for this disparity is that the construction of large-scale sports facilities lags behind urban development. From the West Lake area to the Qiantang River area, from cross-river development to embracing river development, Hangzhou has seen continuous growth in its urban spaces; however, the development of large-scale public sports facilities has fallen short.

As indicated in Fig 3B, district-level sports facilities are evenly distributed in the central part of the city, with a shortage on both the east and west sides. The number of sports facilities at this level is small, accounting for 7.18% of all facilities in Hangzhou. Based on a service range of 2,100 meters, these facilities cover an area of 114.52 km2, accounting for only 20.43% of the study area. The service level distribution has two features: 1) overall, service levels form discrete patches, and the Wulin business zone has an extremely low level, and 2) high-service-level zones deviate from the geometric centers of the districts. The goals of district-level facilities are to meet the sports activity needs of residents within each district and to host district-level cultural, sports, and wellness activities. Hangzhou performs well regarding developing district-level sports facilities and can meet the needs of the majority of residents in their respective districts. Given the limit of service scopes and rings, there are some “service blind zones.”

Fig 3C indicates that subdistrict-level facilities cover large areas west and north of West Lake and that service is relatively concentrated in Xiasha District and Binjiang District; this is consistent with the planned urban layout (the revised Master Plan of 2016) that envisions “a major city with three subcities.”. There are a large number of facilities at this level, accounting for 88.95% of all of the facilities in the city. Based on a 900-meter service radius, the actual service coverage area is 233.12 km2, that is, 32.95% of the study area. Overall, the service level of these sports facilities is broad in the central parts and spotty in the periphery of the city centers. Peak service levels are observed in three subdistricts: Cuiyuan, Shangtang, and Xiaoying. Isolated spatial units with high service levels can be found in the subdistricts of Banshan, Dinglan, Puyan, and Baiyang. Different from provincial (city)-level and district-level facilities, subdistrict-level facilities provide a high service level in the subdistricts of Liuxia, Zhuantang, Pengbu, and Jiubao. Subdistrict-level facilities aim to meet residents’ sports activity needs, such as ball games and swimming; the goal is to provide sports facilities within a 15-minute commute. Facilities in this class require relatively low construction costs, cover a greater total area than do district-level facilities, and serve a larger number of subdistricts than do provincial (city)-level facilities.

From needs to actual selection, residents’ choice of sports activities involves a complex process, and time, space, and the variety of activities influence their choice. Facilities that offer different service levels supplement each other. To perform a comprehensive evaluation of the service level of all public sports facilities in the urban areas of Hangzhou, the service coverage of all three levels of facilities is overlaid, generating a spatial distribution of the consolidated service coverage and service levels. As shown in Fig 3D, only Shangcheng District is fully serviced by public sports facilities; to varying degrees, the other five districts have “vacuum zones” of coverage. Xihu District (the towns of Zhuantang and Shuangpu, and the Sandun and Xihu subdistricts) and Jianggan District (the subdistricts of Xiasha and Jiubao) have many zones that are outside the effective coverage area—an indication that people in the city center areas of Hangzhou have access to well-developed sports facilities. However, the urban villages, factories, villages, and farmland on the outskirts of city centers are still awaiting urban development. As a result, there is no effective service coverage of sports facilities in these areas. Overall, areas with combined service levels are clustered around city centers, resulting in two interconnected smaller centers around the Xixi and Changqing-Chaoming subdistricts. The service level decreases with increasing distance from the center. The disparity in service levels results from the resource advantages of city centers and the lag in development in the periphery of cities. However, given the impact of mountains and water bodies and the differential land rent theory, service level and distance to the city center do not constitute a simple linear relationship.

3.1.2. Service level disparity among districts

Based on formula 1, each district’s service level is derived. Based on the statistics for the service level provided in the spatial units within each district, the average and median service level is calculated for each district. Furthermore, a chart showing the service levels in all districts is created, as shown in Fig 4. The overall service level provided by all of the sports facilities within the study area has the following evident spatial disparities.

Fig 4

Service level disparity of public sports among each district.

Overall service level (darker green column) represents the sum of each subdistrict service level in each district; Average service level (lighter green column) represents the average of the sum of the service levels of each subdistrict in each district; The line represents the median of service level in each district.

In terms of the concentric rings, the service level in the center ring is significantly higher than that in the outer rings; the transition ring also shows extremely high disparity.

In terms of service level by district, the service levels provided by sports facilities in Shangcheng District and Xiacheng District are significantly higher than those in other districts; these districts constitute the upper echelon, followed by Binjiang District and Gongshu District. Jianggan District and Xihu District have the lowest service levels.

In terms of the average service level in the spatial units within each district, Shangcheng District and Xiacheng District have equivalent averages, and both belong to the upper echelon. However, only Gongshu District remains in the second echelon; the average service level in Binjiang District is significantly lower than that in Gongshu; thus, the service levels in Binjiang District, Jianggan District, and Xihu District are in the third echelon.

In terms of the median service level in the spatial units in each district, the median in Xiacheng District is higher than that in Shangcheng District, and both medians are higher than their respective averages. These districts are closely followed by Gongshu District and Binjiang District, which have medians that are close to their respective averages; the medians in Jianggan District and Xihu District are significantly lower than their respective averages.

3.2. Evaluation of equity

3.2.1. Analysis of the Gini coefficient and Lorenz curve

The Gini coefficient is used to evaluate equity in the distribution of public sports facilities. Through formula 2, the 2017 Gini coefficient is estimated to be 0.51. Based on Table 1, it can be concluded that the distribution of public sports resources in the study area is extremely uneven. This unevenness, to a certain extent, indicates that the construction of public sports facilities lags behind urban expansion. To further demonstrate the unbalanced distribution, a Lorenz curve that depicts the allocation of public sports resources among the permanent population is created (Fig 5); this chart indicates extremely high and low concentrations in the allocation of sports resources among the permanent population. Table 4 provides more information about the inequitable distribution of sports facilities: 10% of permanent residents do not have access to any public sports resources; 30% of permanent residents have access to only 2% of public sports resources; 10% of permanent residents have access to 27% of sports resources; and 30% of permanent residents have access to 66.9% of resources.

Fig 5

Lorenz curve of resource allocation of public sports facilities.

Table 4

Cumulative list of the proportion of permanent residents having access to public sports facilities resources.

The cumulative proportion of permanent residents (%)	10	20	30	40	50	60	70	80	90	100
The cumulative proportion of sports facilities resources (%)	0.0	0.3	1.9	5.3	11.2	20.2	33.1	50.4	73.0	100

3.2.2. Location entropy

The location entropy is an indicator for measuring the factor distribution in a region and reflects the degree of specialization of an industry. This study introduces the location entropy into the analysis of spatial equity in the distribution of sports facilities. If the location entropy of a spatial unit is greater than 1, then the sports facilities per capita in the unit is higher than that in the study area, and vice versa. The location entropy for the spatial units is derived from formula 3. To make the data more intuitive and to better inform development strategies, the spatial units are classified into five service levels based on the location entropy, as shown in Table 5. A spatial distribution chart is also created based on this information, as shown in Fig 6.

Table 5

The number and proportion of spatial units of location entropy.

Level	Location entropy	Number of units	Proportion	Unit area (km2)	Proportion
Extremely low	< 0.5	249	39.09%	398.3	56.29%
Low	0.5–0.8	110	17.27%	56.8	8.03%
Medium	0.8–1.2	87	13.66%	43.1	6.10%
High	1.2–2.0	76	10.52%	56.0	7.91%
Extremely high	> 2.0	115	18.05%	153.5	21.70%

Fig 6

Spatial distribution pattern of per capita public sports facilities resources based on location entropy allocation.

There are more spatial units in the two extreme classes than in the classes in the middle. There are 249 spatial units in the extremely low class, followed by 115 spatial units in the extremely high class. There are fewer units in the low, medium, and high classes relative to those in the above two classes.

Spatial units with a location entropy less than 0.8 account for a large proportion (56.36%) of the total number of units, and their area accounts for an even larger proportion (64.32%) of the total study area. Spatial units with a location entropy greater than 1.2 account for a small proportion—less than 30% in terms of the number of units and the total area.

The periphery of cities in the study area mainly contains spatial units with low and extremely low location entropy, although there are a few isolated units with high location entropy. The spatial units with high or extremely high location entropy display a continuous “surrounding” distribution pattern; the spatial units with location entropy between 0.5 and 1.2 are distributed in clusters and “surrounded” by the abovementioned area. Furthermore, the spatial units within the “cluster groups” with medium location entropy outnumber the “cluster groups” with lower location entropy.

From the perspective of concentric rings, spatial units in the center ring have low location entropy; spatial units at the interface between the center and transition rings have high location entropy; and the spatial units in the suburban ring have the lowest location entropy.

3.2.3. Spatial disparity by location entropy class

The spatial units are further analyzed by location entropy class, as shown in Fig 7:

Fig 7

Regional distribution map of each level of location entropy.

(A) Areas with extremely low location entropy (less than 0.5); (B) Areas with low location entropy (0.5–0.8); (C) Areas with medium location entropy (0.8–1.2); (D) Areas with high location entropy (1.2–2.0); (E) Areas with extremely high location entropy (greater than 2.0). Source: Created by the author based on the base map of Hangzhou which comes from the National Platform for Common Geospatial Information Services (https://www.tianditu.gov.cn/).

Areas with extremely low location entropy (less than 0.5)–These spatial units are concentrated in large patches at the periphery of urban areas and include the subdistricts of Zhuantang, Sandun, Xiasha, Jiubao, Jianqiao, Shiqiao, and Banshan. These low-entropy spatial units account for 39.09% of the total number of spatial units, and their area accounts for 56.29% of the study area. There is an extreme shortage of sports facilities in these areas, and they should be priority areas in future sports facility planning.

Areas with low location entropy (0.5–0.8)–These spatial units are mainly concentrated in large patches at the periphery of urban areas. More specifically, some of these low-entropy units are located in patches on the north side of the city in subdistricts including Kangqiao, Shangtang, and Xiangfu; the other spatial units in this class are mainly clustered in city centers. The spatial units in this class account for 17.27% of the total number of spatial units, and their area accounts for 8.03% of the study area. Overall, there is a scarcity of sports facilities in these areas, and they do not meet the exercising needs of people in high-population-density areas.

Areas with medium location entropy (0.8–1.2)–These spatial units show certain concentrations at the borders between districts, such as the border between Shangcheng District and Xiacheng District and the border between Gongshu District and Xihu District. They account for 13.66% of the total number of spatial units, and their area accounts for 8.03% of the study area. These areas represent the average level of sports facility development in Hangzhou.

Areas with high location entropy (1.2–2.0)–These spatial units show certain concentrations at the borders between districts. This class includes spatial units in transition between the medium and extremely high classes. Spatial units in this class account for 10.52% of the total number of spatial units, and their area accounts for 7.91% of the study area.

Areas with extremely high location entropy (greater than 2.0)–These spatial units are mainly located close to natural ecological sites, such as West Lake, Xixi Wetlands, the Qiantang River, and the Grand Canal. They account for 18.05% of the total number of spatial units, and their area accounts for 21.70% of the study area.

3.2.4. Intradistrict disparity

A district-level review is required to evaluate spatial equity in the distribution of public sports facilities in Hangzhou. This section mainly examines the intradistrict disparity in the distribution based on location entropy.

The patterns of distribution of the location entropy classes within the six districts can be divided into three types: balanced (Shangcheng District), alternating (Xiacheng District, Gongshu District, and Binjiang District), and divergent (Xihu District and Jianggan District) districts. As shown in Fig 8, in the balanced districts, each subdistrict has spatial units that belong to high- or low-location-entropy classes, and the overall distribution is balanced. In the alternating districts, the location entropy classes of the spatial units take on an obvious alternating pattern. In the divergent districts, the location entropy classes of the spatial units display an evident pattern of extremes, with a large number of extremely high-class/extremely low-class spatial units.

Fig 8

Distribution pattern of location entropy in each district.

(A) Distribution pattern of location entropy in Shangcheng District; (B) Distribution pattern of location entropy in Xiacheng district; (C) Distribution pattern of location entropy in Gongshu District; (D) Distribution pattern of location entropy in Bingjing District; (E) Distribution pattern of location entropy in Jianggan District; (f) Distribution pattern of location entropy in Xihu District. Source: Created by the author based on the base map of Hangzhou which comes from the National Platform for Common Geospatial Information Services (https://www.tianditu.gov.cn/).

4. Discussion

4.1. Contributions to research analysis methods

This paper provides a complete method system for the evaluation and analysis of the spatial equity of the distribution of public sports facilities. The method has a certain degree of systemicity, universality, and operability. On the one hand, traditional urban public sports facilities’ planning used per capita indicators and service radius to attempt to ensure that the distribution of sports facilities meets the goal of social equity. However, it is based on the homogeneity of urban social space. There is a lack of effective methods to evaluate the performance of the “spatial match” between the distribution of public sports facilities and permanent populations. Therefore, this paper focuses on the three factors of distance, scale, and population density, starting from the perspective of equity in opportunities, and constructs a content system to analyze the equality of the distribution of public sports facilities from the perspective of space matching. On the other hand, this paper adopts the Gini coefficient and the Lorenz curve to evaluate the overall level of the “spatial match.” This method can compare the diachronic characteristics of the same city and the synchronicity of different cities and has universal application value. In addition, the location entropy method is used to further investigate the spatial pattern of facility distribution equality, and the research results are further visualized and presented in a refined manner, making the analysis and discussion more intuitive and effective. This study has certain reference significance for various service facilities.

4.2. Contributions to the optimization of the layout of public sports facilities

At present, given differences in economic income, cultural value orientation, age structure, and other aspects, large cities are experiencing a dual process of social class differentiation and social space polarization, which has led to an actual contradiction in the mismatch between the supply and demand of public sports facilities. The vast majority of urban public sports facilities are occupied by a very small number of permanent residents, which is caused by the concentration of facilities and population in the city center. This research can provide the following assistance for the optimization of the distribution of public sports facilities. On the one hand, it can effectively identify areas with low spatial equity performance, promote the facility layout to incline to areas with low value, and continuously strengthen the planning and construction of public sports facilities in such areas to achieve the “spatial match” between the supply and demand of facilities. On the other hand, in the layout of public sports facilities, more attention needs to be paid to the needs of “people.” In the past, research on the layout of facilities mostly considered the differences between different regions and urban and rural areas and ignored the characteristics of the needs of different groups in the city. Therefore, a foundation is laid for research on the layout of public sports facilities based on the needs of disadvantaged groups.

4.3. Limitations and future research

There are still many points worth discussing in studies on the spatial equality of the distribution of public sports facilities, which is also the focus of future research. First, regarding the measurement of the service level of public sports facilities, limited by the availability of data, this paper adopts the buffer analysis method, which has a certain gap with the actual situation. Although the network analysis method does not have a fundamental impact on the research results, if it can be used on the basis of obtaining the corresponding data, the research results can be more accurate. Second, the fixedness of facilities and the mobility of the service population is a difficult point in the spatial match. The cross-sectional data of the population used in this study are major limitations. In the future, mobile Internet big data applications, including the real-time distribution of the residential population, the employed population, and the recreational population, should be used to provide diversified data sources. Finally, this paper only conducts empirical research based on the data of a specific city in a certain year. A diachronic comparison of the same city and a synchronic comparison between different cities can be carried out in the future.

5. Conclusion

This paper constructs a complete research framework for evaluating the spatial equity of facilities, which is mainly divided into three levels. First, 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.

This paper takes Hangzhou as an example to carry out empirical research and finds that the effective service scope of the central urban area of public sports facilities in Hangzhou is relatively complete, but a "vacuum" area in the periphery still persists. The service level generally presents the spatial characteristics of agglomeration with Xixi Street and Changqing-Chaoming Street as the core, and the level value diffuses outward from high to low. The central area is obviously higher than other circles, and the transition area also presents obvious differentiation of two levels. Second, it is found that the distribution of public sports facilities resources in Hangzhou in 2017 is unbalanced because of the construction level of sports facilities in Hangzhou behind the pace of urban construction expansion. The distribution of public sports resources in the permanent population shows the characteristic of “more in the middle and less at the ends.” Finally, in general, the regions with high location entropy value are concentrated in the central region, whereas the outer region is dominated by spatial units with very low location entropy and relatively low level. In contrast, the location entropy level distribution pattern of six urban spatial units can be roughly divided into three types: balanced urban area(Shangcheng District), alternating urban area (Xiacheng District, Gongshu District, and Binjiang District), and divergent urban area (Xihu District and Jianggan District).

Spatial heterogeneity in the distribution of public sports facilities in Hangzhou causes spatial division, monopolizes residents’ sports activities, and limits the performance of public sports facilities. Different areas are entitled to different service levels provided by various sports facilities, and an absence of these options constitutes spatial inequity. This study can be expanded by collecting historical data that reflect the dynamic changes in the distribution of sports facilities over time. Based on the data, a longitudinal analysis of the development and spatial layout of sports facilities during different periods can be performed. This historical perspective will further inform decision making regarding the provision of sports facilities in urban areas.

27 Apr 2021

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

and

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.

16 Jun 2021

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 !

Submitted filename: 20210616Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

6 Jul 2021

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.

21 Jul 2021

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 !

Submitted filename: 20210721Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

2 Aug 2021

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

9 Aug 2021

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