Spatial Optimization of Tourist-Oriented Villages by Space Syntax Based on Population Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

-Add more explanation related to the formulas, numerical analysis and also explanation related implementation tools in the required sections. 

-In the third section, which is the methodology part, adding the formula related to the spatial syntax gives a better shape to the article.

-In the review section compares the he conventional methods of spatial syntax mentioned in previous articles and discuss their weakness 

-Regarding the implementation environment and tools, add an explanation inside the text and in all sections.

 

Author Response

Thank you for your letter concerning our manuscript entitled Spatial optimization of tourist-oriented villages by Space Syntax Based on Population Analysis (Manuscript ID1884769). We greatly appreciate you and the reviewers for the critical reading of our manuscript and giving us the instructive comments and suggestions.

We have carefully proof-read and revised the manuscript in accordance with the reviewers’ comments. Here we submit the revision of our manuscript. The responses to the comments are described point-by-point as follows with the page and line numbers corresponding to the new or original manuscript. The changes were marked in red in the new manuscript.

Reviewer #1

(1) The reviewer’s comment 1: Add more explanation related to the formulas, numerical analysis and also explanation related implementation tools in the required sections.

The authors’ answer: we agree with the reviewer on this statement. We have added more formulas, explanations related to numerical analysis and areas of application with various methods.

(2) The reviewer’s comment 2: In the third section, which is the methodology part, adding the formula related to the spatial syntax gives a better shape to the article.

The authors’ answer: we agree with the reviewer on this statement. We add the formulas related to spatial syntax in the third part. And the formulae are analyzed and explained to enrich the article.

(3) The reviewer’s comment 3: In the review section compares the conventional methods of spatial syntax mentioned in previous articles and discuss their weakness.

The authors’ answer: we agree with the reviewer on this statement.

(4) The reviewer’s comment 4: Regarding the implementation environment and tools, add an explanation inside the text and in all sections.

The authors’ answer: we agree with the reviewer on this statement. We limit the scope of application of the spatial syntax method and the crowd analysis method. We clarify the scope of use of each method.

Thank you for your valuable and thoughtful comments. We have carefully checked and improved the English writing in the revised manuscript (English editing from MDPI).

Once again, we want to extend our appreciation to you and the reviewers for the valuable and helpful comments. We would be grateful if the manuscript could be considered for publication in Sustainability Journal.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The topic of this article is very interesting. The article can be used as an example of good practice for other tourist destinations around the world.

Parts of the article are very good, especially the literature review at the beginning where the authors use other research and give a detailed overview of previous research in rural tourism.

At the beginning of the article, the authors should state the hypotheses they were guided by, and in the discussion whether the hypotheses were confirmed or not. The materials and methods are very clearly and precisely given in the next part of the article.

The authors explain in great detail the Population Analysis (PA) and "Space Syntax" used in this research. The results are presented in great detail with very good figures, tables, diagrams and photographs.

References are good and modern.

Author Response

Thank you for your letter concerning our manuscript entitled Spatial optimization of tourist-oriented villages by Space Syntax Based on Population Analysis (Manuscript ID1884769). We greatly appreciate you and the reviewers for the critical reading of our manuscript and giving us the instructive comments and suggestions.

We have carefully proof-read and revised the manuscript in accordance with the reviewers comments. Here we submit the revision of our manuscript. The responses to the comments are described point-by-point as follows with the page and line numbers corresponding to the new or original manuscript. The changes were marked in red in the new manuscript.

Reviewer #2

(1) The reviewer’s comment 1: The topic of this article is very interesting. The article can be used as an example of good practice for other tourist destinations around the world.

The authors’ answer: we agree with the reviewer on this statement.

(2) The reviewer’s comment 2: Parts of the article are very good, especially the literature review at the beginning where the authors use other research and give a detailed overview of previous research in rural tourism.

The authors’ answer: we agree with the reviewer on this statement.

(3) The reviewer’s comment 3: At the beginning of the article, the authors should state the hypotheses they were guided by, and in the discussion whether the hypotheses were confirmed or not. The materials and methods are very clearly and precisely given in the next part of the article.

The authors’ answer: we agree with the reviewer on this statement. We add previous assumptions, shortcomings and perspectives on several methods in research in Section 3, and justify the assumptions in the discussion in Section 5. We explore that SSPA can be applied as a new spatial syntax for the spatial design and optimization of rural.

(4) The reviewer’s comment 4: The authors explain in great detail the Population Analysis (PA) and "Space Syntax" used in this research. The results are presented in great detail with very good figures, tables, diagrams and photographs.

The authors’ answer: we agree with the reviewer on this statement.

(5) The reviewer’s comment 5: References are good and modern.

The authors’ answer: we agree with the reviewer on this statement.

Once again, we want to extend our appreciation to you and the reviewers for the valuable and helpful comments. We would be grateful if the manuscript could be considered for publication in Sustainability Journal.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors, cordial greetings.

Thank you for the opportunity to review your manuscript, which I find very interesting, however it has some opportunities for improvement:

 

In the introduction section it lacks the research question, the purpose of this research advance.

 

In the literature review section it lacks significant sections, it is advisable to review the WOS base to better feed this section, I do not see the aspect of sustainability that go in the direction of this journal. It is also recommended that the paragraphs be short and illustrate the information for the reader. Although the manuscript is interesting, it becomes tedious to read.

 

The methodological section is well explained and interesting to read.

 

Unlike the results section, it should be improved, from the images to the way of explaining, the logic is lost.

 

the discussion should be improved, if we have so many works used in the methodological part, why the discussion lacks relevant authors that support or disagree with the results of the present investigation in this section, it should be improved.

 

the conclusion should project what would be the research prospective and limitations.

 

the references should be revised according to editorial criteria.

 

Best wishes.

Author Response

Thank you for your letter concerning our manuscript entitled Spatial optimization of tourist-oriented villages by Space Syntax Based on Population Analysis (Manuscript ID1884769). We greatly appreciate you and the reviewers for the critical reading of our manuscript and giving us the instructive comments and suggestions.

We have carefully proof-read and revised the manuscript in accordance with the reviewer comments. Here we submit the revision of our manuscript. The responses to the comments are described point-by-point as follows with the page and line numbers corresponding to the new or original manuscript. The changes were marked in red in the new manuscript.

Reviewer #3

(1) The reviewer’s comment 1: In the introduction section it lacks the research question, the purpose of this research advance.

The authors’ answer: we agree with the reviewer on this statement. The research question of the article is recondensed in the introduction section. The purpose of this study is further clarified.

(2) The reviewer’s comment 2: In the literature review section it lacks significant sections, it is advisable to review the WOS base to better feed this section, I do not see the aspect of sustainability that go in the direction of this journal. It is also recommended that the paragraphs be short and illustrate the information for the reader. Although the manuscript is interesting, it becomes tedious to read.

The authors’ answer: we agree with the reviewer on this statement. We added literature on rural-urban sustainable development in the section of literature review to organize and summarize the review. The logic moves from urban-rural sustainable development to rural sustainable development, and finally the focus is on the sustainable development of tourism villages, which improves the readability of the article.

(3) The reviewer’s comment 3: The methodological section is well explained and interesting to read.

The authors’ answer: we agree with the reviewer on this statement.

(4) The reviewer’s comment 4: Unlike the results section, it should be improved, from the images to the way of explaining, the logic is lost.

The authors’ answer: we agree with the reviewer on this statement. We further clarified the analysis process and conclusions of the SSPA analysis method. We use the population analysis method to research different use groups to obtain the use needs of the population. Based on the population analysis, we apply the spatial sentence method to optimize the design of the space of the tourist village to achieve the sustainable development of the tourist village. We elaborate and analyze the process of drawing conclusions from the research method to further strengthen the logic of the article.

(5) The reviewer’s comment 5: the discussion should be improved, if we have so many works used in the methodological part, why the discussion lacks relevant authors that support or disagree with the results of the present investigation in this section, it should be improved.

The authors’ answer: we agree with the reviewer on this statement. We have revised the discussion. The problems and shortcomings encountered by other authors in studying rural space optimization were rediscussed. Thus, we further clarified the advantages of using SSPA.

(6) The reviewer’s comment 6: the conclusion should project what would be the research prospective and limitations.

The authors’ answer: we agree with the reviewer on this statement. We resupply the research limitations and prospects of the method on rural transformation.

(7) The reviewer’s comment 7: the references should be revised according to editorial criteria.

The authors’ answer: we agree with the reviewer on this statement. We modified the references. Specifically, we modified the italics of the issue number and the spaces for the person's name.

Thank you for your valuable and thoughtful comments. We have carefully checked and improved the English writing in the revised manuscript (English editing from MDPI).

Once again, we want to extend our appreciation to you and the reviewers for the valuable and helpful comments. We would be grateful if the manuscript could be considered for publication in Sustainability Journal.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors, I appreciate the effort to improve your manuscript.

Best wishes.