Mapping User Experiences around Transit Stops Using Computer Vision Technology: Action Priorities from Cairo

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please see REVIEW report ( docx.) for detailed analysis and evaluation

This interesting paper explores the use of new technologies as a support to urban and transport planning and development. It presents the results of using the computer vision technology to map the behavior settings around metro station sites in order to investigate the relation between users’ experience and urban configuration. Ascending AI application ‘GoodVision Video Insights’ was used to analyze people’s behavior, based on recorded videos of the selected regions at rush hours. In order to study the effect of urban configuration and other physical elements on users’ experience in these areas, the spatial analysis was also performed by using a Geographical Information System (GIS) application. The research has been conducted in Ramses, Cairo, Egypt, with a focus on three metro station entrances.

The paper contributes to the field by developing a valuable method and framework for mapping and analyzing people's behavior and experiences in transit stops areas, which is possible to use in other similar research situations. At the same time, the results of the study provide the empirical evidence on the importance of the overall quality of metro station surrounding areas for users’ experience. This means that an appropriate planning and design of these areas is important for supporting the use of metro as a sustainable mode of transportation. Finally, this study contributes to better understanding of the research problem in specific Egyptian context, and serve as basis for developing related action priorities. 

In general terms, the paper is well structured and significantly contributes to the general knowledge on the topic. However, it may be strengthened after addressing some points. Here are some comments and suggestions:

1.       The authors may need to check and to be more precise when using the terms “users’ experience” and “users’ behavior”. I would suggest the authors to briefly explain their meanings and relation. Since this study investigates users’ behavior in relation to physical elements of urban structure in order to map assumed factors of users’ experience, it is important for wider readership to understand this.

2.       It will be useful to provide a brief review on previous studies on applying computer vision technology for research in urban and transportation planning, and specifically on “GoodVision Video Insights’” application ( if there are any). Novelty and innovative approach of this manuscript should be stressed, if it exists.

3.       Some elements of “Figure  2 – Factors of users’ experience” seems to be missing  ( one of the arrows for comfort level) and some of the factors needs to be explained in this section (OD matrix ). Besides that, I suggest the authors to help readers understand the Figure 2 more clearly by providing brief explanation of its structure and elements. It is important to be clear how all elements presented as Factors relate to already conducted literature review ( for example  it is not clear from literature review how “land use” function as factor). It should be summarized what elements/factors are related to user experience and what elements are going to be studied as elements of urban structure – so that it can be related to Figure 6 and Table 1.

4.       This is also important because these elements (Figure 2) should be clearly related to how human behaviour on one side, and elements of urban structure/configuration are lately mapped, related and analysed in this study. Although Figure 6 provides logic and information on “The whole process of studying human behaviour”- in Methods section it should be clearly noted how data gathered correspond to each factor/element .

5.       It is important to provide in Methods section (at least general) information on what physical elements of metro station context will be analysed in relation to users behavior ( although some are maybe discovered during the study). These elements occur only in Table 1

6.       There are some references in text that are not present in Reference list. For example: (Turk, 2004) – line 35.;  (Gavrila & Munder, 2007) – line 37; Dorine (2015) - line 1 (after Table 1). Besides that, references do not follow Sustainability referencing system/format

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

This interesting paper explores the use of new technologies as a support to urban and transport planning and development. It presents the results of using the computer vision technology to map the behavior settings around metro station sites in order to investigate the relation between users’ experience and urban configuration. Ascending AI application ‘GoodVision Video Insights’ was used to analyze people’s behavior, based on recorded videos of the selected regions at rush hours. In order to study the effect of urban configuration and other physical elements on users’ experience in these areas, the spatial analysis was also performed by using a Geographical Information System (GIS) application. The research has been conducted in Ramses, Cairo, Egypt, with a focus on three metro station entrances.

The paper contributes to the field by developing a valuable method and framework for mapping and analyzing people's behavior and experiences in transit stops areas, which is possible to use in other similar research situations. At the same time, the results of the study provide the empirical evidence on the importance of the overall quality of metro station surrounding areas for users’ experience. This means that an appropriate planning and design of these areas is important for supporting the use of metro as a sustainable mode of transportation. Finally, this study contributes to better understanding of the research problem in specific Egyptian context, and serve as basis for developing related action priorities.

In general terms, the paper is well structured and significantly contributes to the general knowledge on the topic. However, it may be strengthened after addressing some points. Here are some comments and suggestions:

Response: Our sincere thanks go out to you for your constructive feedback, which we believe has brought our manuscript closer to publication. 

1. The authors may need to check and to be more precise when using the terms“users’ experience” and “users’ behavior”. I would suggest the authors to briefly explain their meanings and relation. Since this study investigates users’ behavior in relation to physical elements of urban structure in order to map assumed factors of users’ experience, it is important for wider readership to understand this.

Response: Thank you for this valuable comment; we agree with you that incorrect two terms interchangeably. In this regard, we have modified the definition of user experiences as our focus, and we deleted human behaviour. Kindly check the presence of ‘human behavior’ in the entire text, and the focus of our study explained on Page 2

2. It will be useful to provide a brief review on previous studies on applyingcomputer vision technology for research in urban and transportation planning, and specifically on “GoodVision Video Insights’” application ( if there are any). The novelty and innovative approach of this manuscript should be stressed, if it exists.

Response: We appreciate your helpful note. According to your recommendation, we have added references linking our method to previous studies in lines 60-71. Page 2 lines 92-94 describe how the software contributed to this research's added value. 

3. Some elements of “Figure  2– Factors of users’ experience” seems to be missing  ( one of the arrows for comfort level) and some of the factors needs to be explained in this section (OD matrix ). Besides that, I suggest the authors to help readers understand the Figure 2 more clearly by providing brief explanation of its structure and elements.

Response: Figure 2 has been edited, and we also added definitions for some factors that might be unclear to some readers

4. It is important to be clear how all elements presented as Factors relate to already conducted literature review ( for example  it is not clear from literature review how “land use” function as factor). It should be summarized what elements/factors are related to user experience and what elements are going to be studied as elements of urban structure – so that it can be related to Figure 6and Table 1.

Response: It has been modified, kindly double check lines 165–187

5. This is also important because these elements (Figure 2) should be clearly related to how human behaviour on one side, and elements of urban structure/configuration are lately mapped, related and analysed in this study. Although Figure 6provides logic and information on “The whole process of studying human behaviour”- in Methods section it should be clearly noted how data gathered correspond to each factor/element .

Response: We agree with you. Figure 6 has been edited for more clarification of this critical point.

5. It is important to provide in Methods section (at least general) information on what physical elements of metro station context will be analysed in relation to users behavior ( although some are maybe discovered during the study). These elements occur only in Table 1

Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. We have summarised the urban configuration elements in lines 154–164 in the ‘Research Background’ section and in lines 232-242 in method section

6. There are some referencesin text that are not present in Reference list. For example: (Turk, 2004) – line 35.;  (Gavrila & Munder, 2007) – line 37; Dorine (2015) - line 1 (after Table 1). Besides that, references do not follow Sustainability referencing system/format

Response: Thank you so much for such concise revision. We have added the missing citations and modified referencing system.

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

this paper aims to investigate the relation between user's experience and urban configuration around metro sites, while the only result presented in the paper is the pedestrian analysis and its visualization, I think this is not enough for such a paper title. The expected mapping model to establish the relation between user's experience and factors is ignored.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

This paper aims to investigate the relation between user's experience and urban configuration around metro sites, while the only result presented in the paper is the pedestrian analysis and its visualization, I think this is not enough for such a paper title. The expected mapping model to establish the relation between user's experience and factors is ignored.

Response: Thank you so much for your feedback. We have adjusted the research title to reflect this. The relationship was explained in the results. The focus is on mapping the factors that affect users experiences  

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors consider the issue of human-centric urban design, with particular focus on public transportation, and build an experiment to employ well established machine learning techniques for data collection and analytics to support urban planning. Their work is well grounded on existing work and moves forward to consolidate a methodology that can be used to improve urban design based on objective observations. It will be interesting to see in future work this methodology put in practice to actually influence urban design in Cairo and other cities.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

The authors consider the issue of human-centric urban design, with particular focus on public transportation, and build an experiment to employ well established machine learning techniques for data collection and analytics to support urban planning. Their work is well grounded on existing work and moves forward to consolidate a methodology that can be used to improve urban design based on objective observations. It will be interesting to see in future work this methodology put in practice to actually influence urban design in Cairo and other cities.

Response: Our sincere thanks go out to you for your constructive feedback, which we believe has brought our manuscript closer to publication. 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

1. Figure 1  can be improved.

2. There should be difference in user experiences between people whose purposes are different, even in the same area.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

1. Figure 1 can be improved.

Response: Figure 1 has been modified. Double check, please

2. There should be difference in user experiences between people whose purposes are different, even in the same area.

Response: Thank you so much for these valuable comments, we have added sentences in blue text. Please check the sentence that starts with "There should be differences..." in page 18