Space Syntax in Analysing Bicycle Commuting Routes in Inner Metropolitan Adelaide

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

It is necessary to underline the novelty of the research in the introductory part instead the limitations in the conclusions.

It is necessary to include what methods have been adopted in recent years to be able to improve the planning and design of bicycle infrastructure and also the safety of cyclists. Therefore I recommend reading the following research papers:
1) Philips, I., Clarke, G., & Watling, D. (2017). A fine grained hybrid spatial microsimulation technique for generating detailed synthetic individuals from multiple data sources: an application to walking and cycling. The International Journal of Microsimulation, 10(1), 167-200.

2)Campisi, T., Acampa, G., Marino, G., & Tesoriere, G. (2020). Cycling master plans in Italy: The I-BIM feasibility tool for cost and safety assessments. Sustainability, 12(11), 4723.

It is also useful to point out what factors may motivate or modify trends in bicycle use and whether there is compatibility in the use of shared spaces between pedestrians and cyclists for example 
Therefore, I  recommend reading the following research papers
1)Piras, F., Sottile, E., & Meloni, I. (2021). Do psycho-attitudinal factors vary with individuals' cycling frequency? A hybrid ordered modeling approach. Travel behavior and society, 22, 186-198.
2)Nikiforiadis, A., & Basbas, S. (2019). Can pedestrians and cyclists share the same space? The case of a city with low cycling levels and experience. Sustainable cities and society, 46, 101453.

Which software was used to derive figure 1?
It is necessary to insert a greater explanation to accompany the legend of figure 4.
The text has some grammatical and formatting errors.

Author Response

Many thanks for the reviewer's useful and through comments. Please see the answers bolded. Look at the yellow highlighted areas of the paper for major changes.

It is necessary to underline the novelty of the research in the introductory part instead the limitations in the conclusions.

The novelty is added

The limitation discussion is turned to further research directions. 

It is necessary to include what methods have been adopted in recent years to be able to improve the planning and design of bicycle infrastructure and also the safety of cyclists. Therefore I recommend reading the following research papers:
1) Philips, I., Clarke, G., & Watling, D. (2017). A fine grained hybrid spatial microsimulation technique for generating detailed synthetic individuals from multiple data sources: an application to walking and cycling. The International Journal of Microsimulation, 10(1), 167-200.

2)Campisi, T., Acampa, G., Marino, G., & Tesoriere, G. (2020). Cycling master plans in Italy: The I-BIM feasibility tool for cost and safety assessments. Sustainability, 12(11), 4723.

It is also useful to point out what factors may motivate or modify trends in bicycle use and whether there is compatibility in the use of shared spaces between pedestrians and cyclists for example 
Therefore, I  recommend reading the following research papers
1)Piras, F., Sottile, E., & Meloni, I. (2021). Do psycho-attitudinal factors vary with individuals' cycling frequency? A hybrid ordered modeling approach. Travel behavior and society, 22, 186-198.
2)Nikiforiadis, A., & Basbas, S. (2019). Can pedestrians and cyclists share the same space? The case of a city with low cycling levels and experience. Sustainable cities and society, 46, 101453.

Three of these papers are cited, useful relevant comments are added.

Look at page 3 for instance, and the highlighted refrence list. 

Which software was used to derive figure 1?

ESRI ArcGIS 10.8.1 and Depthmap X version 0.5 as mentioned in page 5.

It is necessary to insert a greater explanation to accompany the legend of figure 4.

It is elaborated, see page 7.
The text has some grammatical and formatting errors.

It is corrected by a native academic. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Peer review of “Impacts of Space Syntax Measures on Bicycle Communiting, the Inner Adelaide Case Study,” by Soltani et al.

Comments

• Conference proceedings and unpublished reports that have not gone through peer review are not suitable references. As a spot check, I looked up the first 8 references. Of those 8, number 3 omitted the name of the journal, number 4 is a dissertation, number 5 is conference proceedings, number 7 is an unspecified thesis, and number 8 is an unpublished college report. I did not examine all of the references, but I strongly urge the authors to exclude non peer-reviewed references such as conference proceedings and college reports. Dissertations may be appropriate on a case by case basis, but the peer- reviewed publication based on the dissertation would be more appropriate. Government reports may be appropriate depending on the topic – reference 31 is an example. But for reference 31, the authors need to specify the URL for the GIS data used rather than pointing to a broad government website. In all cases, enough information must be provided for a reader to locate the source of the information cited.
• On page 2, space syntax is referred to as a computer language. My understanding is that space syntax is an analytical framework with quantitative and geospatial components, but I don’t believe it is a computer language.
• On page two, the sentence beginning “There are limited studies on the measures…” does not make sense.
• On page 5, the reference to “Github DepthmapX” is incorrect. GIthub is an online platform where code is shared. The product is DepthmapX.
• On page 5, when discussing journey to work, the acronym ABS needs to be defined on first use. It is presently defined further down.
• Figure 2: What is the significance of the brown/purple/green groupings of data sources? Do all of the green data come from the same source, or are they used differently than purple data?
• Figure 3: what is R3 and R5 and how do they differ from global? Why are R3 and R5 nearly normally distributed but global is not? Why bother to show anything other than the three metrics that were selected for modeling (global integration, global depth, and connectivity), two of which are NOT normally distributed? What is the impact of these two metrics not being normally distributed?
• Table 2: You included the total number of workers who cycled to work, and the number of male workers aged 25 to 34. Was the number of female workers aged 25 to 34 not significant?
• On page 11, please explain what literature you are referring to when you say “only one measure out of six in the literature.”
• English grammar and sentence structure as generally adequate but sometimes awkward. I recommend review by an experienced English editor. For example, page 11, “In similar, Schepers…” should be “Similarly, Schepers…” and on page 12, “gentrification while could” should be “gentrification which could.”

Author Response

Thank you for the helpful and thoughtful comments from the reviewer. Please note that the bolded ones are my answers . Look at the yellow highlighted areas of the paper for major changes please.

• Conference proceedings and unpublished reports that have not gone through peer review are not suitable references. As a spot check, I looked up the first 8 references. Of those 8, number 3 omitted the name of the journal, number 4 is a dissertation, number 5 is conference proceedings, number 7 is an unspecified thesis, and number 8 is an unpublished college report. I did not examine all of the references, but I strongly urge the authors to exclude non peer-reviewed references such as conference proceedings and college reports. Dissertations may be appropriate on a case by case basis, but the peer- reviewed publication based on the dissertation would be more appropriate. Government reports may be appropriate depending on the topic – reference 31 is an example. But for reference 31, the authors need to specify the URL for the GIS data used rather than pointing to a broad government website. In all cases, enough information must be provided for a reader to locate the source of the information cited.

Non-refereed and grey litrature are almost removed (except the Governmental unique documents and datasets).

• On page 2, space syntax is referred to as a computer language. My understanding is that space syntax is an analytical framework with quantitative and geospatial components, but I don’t believe it is a computer language.

It is corrected. 

• On page two, the sentence beginning “There are limited studies on the measures…” does not make sense.

It is removed. See page 2. 

• On page 5, the reference to “Github DepthmapX” is incorrect. GIthub is an online platform where code is shared. The product is DepthmapX.

It is corrected. See page 5. 

• On page 5, when discussing journey to work, the acronym ABS needs to be defined on first use. It is presently defined further down.

It is corrected. See pape 5. 

• Figure 2: What is the significance of the brown/purple/green groupings of data sources? Do all of the green data come from the same source, or are they used differently than purple data?

There is no rational in color choose for this graph. It was random selection. 

• Figure 3: what is R3 and R5 and how do they differ from global? Why are R3 and R5 nearly normally distributed but global is not? Why bother to show anything other than the three metrics that were selected for modeling (global integration, global depth, and connectivity), two of which are NOT normally distributed? What is the impact of these two metrics not being normally distributed?

Ri denotes a local measurement within a certain radius. The measurement of the entire cycling network is called Global. The goal was to plot the values of all measurable indeces, then choose a handful to utilise in the model because they are almost correlated in the way we looked at them (Figure 4). All plots now have a normal distribution after removing outliers, incorrect, and null quantities. See Figure 3.

• Table 2: You included the total number of workers who cycled to work, and the number of male workers aged 25 to 34. Was the number of female workers aged 25 to 34 not significant?

It wasn't one of the statistically significant variables, to be sure. One factor could be that female workers cycle one-third as much as males.

• On page 11, please explain what literature you are referring to when you say “only one measure out of six in the literature.”

It is corrected. 

• English grammar and sentence structure as generally adequate but sometimes awkward. I recommend review by an experienced English editor. For example, page 11, “In similar, Schepers…” should be “Similarly, Schepers…” and on page 12, “gentrification while could” should be “gentrification which could.”

It is corrected by an academic who is a native speaker.

Reviewer 3 Report

The downloaded version of the manuscript contains red- highlighted parts (and contains no row numbering). I assume that is a revised version and the newly added elements are the red ones. I see no earlier version and earlier reviews. However, I make this review according to the clarity of the manuscript and the high class of this version.

The work is interesting, well constructed, and clearly written. The present form is understandable. I propose little corrections and additions to enlarge the quality of the paper.

Please add in figure 3 (in all diagrams, indexes) a description of axes (explain values in axes).

Please explain (on page 7) why not all indexes have a distribution close to normal and why it has a sense?

Please not divide a table (number 3) into two pages (9 and 10).

Please explain in figure 5 (top part) both axes. The words: “top” and “bottom” are not needed in the title of this figure.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your thoughtful and insightful remarks. My responses are bolded, and the relevant section of the document is marked. 

The downloaded version of the manuscript contains red- highlighted parts (and contains no row numbering). I assume that is a revised version and the newly added elements are the red ones. I see no earlier version and earlier reviews. However, I make this review according to the clarity of the manuscript and the high class of this version.

It is now cleaned. 

The work is interesting, well constructed, and clearly written. The present form is understandable. I propose little corrections and additions to enlarge the quality of the paper.

Thank you for your attention. 

Please add in figure 3 (in all diagrams, indexes) a description of axes (explain values in axes).

It is added to the Figure's caption. For all graphs, the X-axis shows the value of the measure and the Y-axis shows the frequency. 

Please explain (on page 7) why not all indexes have a distribution close to normal and why it has a sense?

After removing outliers, incorrect, and null amounts, it is fixed. See Figure 3. 

Please not divide a table (number 3) into two pages (9 and 10).

It is corrected. The published version will be free of such mistakes. 

Please explain in figure 5 (top part) both axes. The words: “top” and “bottom” are not needed in the title of this figure.

These two graphs were too simple, they are removed.