Urban Land-Use Allocation with Resilience: Application of the Lowry Model

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I like this manuscript which, in my opinion, is very well-written and organised. The urban economic theory, which is the driver of the study, is reported with clarity and of interest to a broad audience. Despite the vast number of tables (all necessary), the lecture is enjoyable, and the contents quickly grasp.

I suggest publishing the present version

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This study expands the Lowry model from population distribution based on accessibility to vulnerability and accessibility, which has certain innovation and practical significance. However, there are serious problems in writing that are not rigorous and standardized, and it focus on data description with less analysis content.

 

1.      The introduction needs to be revised, which lacks an overview of previous studies.

2. The citation of literature is insufficient and nonstandard. First, there should be no references in the abstract, and it is not recommended to quote more than three documents in one bracket; Secondly, some concepts and previous studies lack of references, including the first reference to Lowry model research, the definition of social vulnerability, and indicators of vulnerable areas.

3. This paper uses the data of Taoyuan City in 2015, which is somewhat outdate. At present, 2020 data has been updated.

4. Forms: First of all, there are too many forms and few text introductions. It is recommended to display some forms in text or pictures. Second, the figures in the table need to be standardized, and the same decimal point is reserved, which is not uniform in this paper. Third, the table description is too lengthy, such as the calculation process in Table 11.

5. The three types of service sector parameters are used several times in the following text. How are the parameters measured?

6. There are more data descriptions, but less actual analysis. The conclusion needs to be supplemented.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The discussion does not exist. And in the results it does not incorporate bibliography of other authors to contrast them.

The latter should be solved.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf