Urban Public Service Analysis by GIS-MCDA for Sustainable Redevelopment: A Case Study of a Megacity in Korea

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper shows that a considerable amount of effort went into the study. The authors provided detailed methods on how the vulnerability of buildings and public services were estimated using Simpson’s index. However, the data collection process is somewhat unclear. For example, how did the authors gather the data for the age of each building?

In the result section, the authors presented the quantitative data results using GIS-Based multicriteria Decision Analysis. The result (figure 8 for example), shows a significant number of unsuitable residential buildings that are identified through this study. Are there any interpretations for sustainable development and urban public services? It would be useful to discuss the results, comparing them with other geographic areas in Seoul or other cities to see further insights.

What is the major difference between Vulnerability maps (Figure 6) and Suitability maps (Figure 8)? There is a lack of discussion of the implementations of this research finding.

Discussion and Conclusion: The authors presented a very short discussion and conclusion from several valuable results. Compared with other studies that utilised GIS-MCDA, what components are a novelty and how does this study contribute to new knowledge? The authors could further discuss how this study can support the improvement of sustainability development. Limitations of this study and recommended areas of the study should be presented more clearly.

Author Response

Thank you for your clear revision.
We read and reference "Enhancing the Historic Public Social Housing through a User-Centered Design-Driven Approach", this thesis is very helpful to get more information. (line 83~88)
Also, we revise the thesis with your other comments. (figure 4 as well)

Thank you.
Regards,
Dongkyu Lee

 

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper proposes a framework for supplying public services based on transit-oriented development concept with GIS analysis technique. Abstract is clear and focus on the research. The introduction is very interesting, as it consider a lot of important points for urban regeneration. I ask you to reference more several sentences. They are true, of course, but It is better to have a confirmation of these theories by scientific literature (I.e. rows 34-36, 47-50, 58-61, ...). Than, I was surprise to see that the problems of the Asian word are very common also in big-cities in Europe (that are not mega-cities competed to the Asian ones). Some problems are really common here, such as social aspects, like suburbanization, demographic aging, grow in epidemics like Covid-19, economic decline and poverty, and environmental climate change. Also here, the human-centered approaches are the only to guarantee revitalization and urban regeneration. some more information are demonstrated by the research https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings10090159. Here, an off-site campus has been defined in a peripheral area of Milan to experiment with the students at urban level, considering a socio-ecological approach that connect people, energy, use of resources, transportation. This help the transformation of the city with more innovative ideas as well as the improvement of students’ learning with a concreate urban living laboratory. It could be a reference to demonstrate the importance of you approach also n all maga and big cities all around the world. Also, a link to urban green protocols can help the settings of the criteria for evaluating the public services. A section on aims an methodology that consider the final part of introduction, the criteria and the methodology can help the comprehension of the paper. Figure 4 is very clear. Could you add the criteria selection here? The discussion of you case study is clear. The methodology could be resumed wit more comunicative tables while the discussion of the results with Gis maps is ver clear. Conclusion ar both enough. It is a pity becomes the other part of the research are very well done. Buckets points on you results can help you to improve the conclusions.

Author Response

Thank you for your clear revision.
We read and reference "Enhancing the Historic Public Social Housing through a User-Centered Design-Driven Approach", this thesis is very helpful to get more information.
Also, we revise the thesis with your other comments.

Thank you.
Regards,
Dongkyu Lee

Reviewer 3 Report

One of the most important problems of the contemporary development of many cities is the process of their shrinkage. Urban shrinkage is a diverse and complex phenomenon due to its multi-faceted and multi-dimensional nature. The scale of shrinkage of cities has many negative effects, visible in the context of changes, e.g. social, economic and environmental. Thus, the phenomenon is also related to the sustainable development of cities. In this context, I believe that the problem discussed in the article is important and current. Unfortunately, reading the article leads to the formulation of its following weaknesses:

• "Sustainable Redevelopment" was missing from the keywords.
• No research goal was defined, and no research question was asked. There was also no research hypothesis.
• How do the authors understand the term "sustainable urban regeneration"? How does this concept differ from the classic "urban regeneration"? Why transit-oriented development "has become a solution for the sustainable development of cities" (lines 87-88, p. 2)? How should the term "sustainable development of cities" be understood in general?
• You should check the correctness of the formula (5). What does "l" mean in formula (7)? How should the symbol "E_lj" in formula (7) be understood?
• The “x_ij“ symbol is too broadly explained - it is not clear how it corresponds to m district data and n feature classes.

Author Response

Thank you for your clear revision.
We add "Sustainable Redevelopment" as keywords.
We stress the clear research goal, question, and hypothesis. (line 22-24)

Also, we make clear the sentence of lines 87-88. (line 79~83, 92~95)
We provide the information of variables in the research's formula.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have updated the literature review and provide a more concise aim of the study. The minor improvement was made to clarify the results, but the conclusion remained the same as the originally submitted paper. The theoretical and managerial contributions could be more clearly articulated in the conclusion section.

Author Response

Thank you for your minor revision.

We have changed the conclusion part with more clear limitations of this research and recommended areas.

Also, we add several sentences to clarify the conclusion and discussion.

Thank you.

Regards,

Dongkyu Lee

Reviewer 2 Report

-

Author Response

Thank you.

 

Regards,

Dongkyu Lee