Understanding the Spatial Distribution and Behavior of Elderly Residents in Age-Friendly Communities: An Analysis of Outdoor Space Features in Hangzhou, China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The topic of this paper is highly relevant however the entire focus on quantitative methods of assessing 'spatial distribution and behavior of elderly residents in age-friendly communities' has resulted in a very limited understanding the context, both culturally and environmentally. There is a rich culture of elderly people in China using parks & open space for organised recreational activities. This could be addressed initially in the Introduction in the form of a general background and in the definitions by including definitions of 'age-friendly communities' and 'eras of age-friendly communities'- from line 49 on.
The second research objective line 63-64 suggests more than the statistics provided in tables to cover 'effects of landscape elements, spatial characteristics and microclimate.'
I suggest some photos with informative captions could address this; particularly in Section 5 DISCUSSION.
The discussion on methodology and data collection was interesting and linked well with the evaluation of current data methods in the Literature Review.
Figures 1, 2, & 3 were missing; also line 216 needs to remove some repetition.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The article addresses a very topic in urban/community planning using an innovative methodology. The article is organized in a convenient way and the results have contributions to the concurrent literature. Therefore, the work would be publishable if the authors address the following points:
- The WHO Age-Friendly Cities Framework should be included and discussed in the literature review. Moreover, the indicators proposed by the framework should be discussed and used in the study.
- the indicators selected in the Selection of Indicators section should be documented via previously successful studies.
- Mapping the results and showing the similarities and differences between communities under study would help to draw conclusions in a more clear and understandable way for international readers.
-The English style of the article is weak. Using long statements makes the text hard to follow. It is better to edit the article with the help of a native language editor.
The English style of the article is weak. Using long statements makes the text hard to follow. It is better to edit the article with the help of a native language editor.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
- In the case of the following figures(Figure 1,Figure 2,Figure 3, Figure 4), it is not known which part of the text is explained.
- In the case of the following tables (Table1,Figure 2,Figure 3), it is not known which part of the text is explained.
In Table 1, Volume ratio (%) => I don't know what it means. I need an explanation.
In Figure 1, after selecting four communities, isn't it necessary to compare them through analysis of each community? Why is there no analysis by community in the text?
It seems that it is impossible to distinguish whether a person detected by drone video and image segmentation is an elderly person or not. It is necessary to explain more specifically why drones and deep learning were used for data collection. Drones and deep learning do not seem so efficient or necessary for data collection in this study, so why are they included?
the Quality of English Languag is moderate.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I have gone through the resubmitted material on this paper, and I can see that the authors have tried to address my comments. Despite this, I feel such a strong focus on quantification as the only form of results for a paper titled, Understanding the spatial distribution and behaviour of elderly residents in age-friendly communities: An analysis of outdoor space features in Hangzhou, China, does not provide a satisfactory explanation nor understanding.
I appreciate how much work & rigor has gone into this study, so I suggest that the Conclusion focus on 'Future Research' which points out that qualitative analyses are needed, such as spatial analytical maps for each of the 4 gathering points. As well, closer analyses of the GVI for each location that address the type of vegetation; its form & seasonality, whether the vegetation acts as canopy, windbreak or visual modification. Similarly, the SVF needs more extensive analysis including changing shadow patterns between 7am - 5pm.
Including a paragraph in the conclusion on the need for future research to address the qualitative aspects of An analysis of outdoor space features and bring out the limitations of quantification alone, then the paper is suitable for publication
Author Response
Please see the attachment. We appreciate your valuable advice.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
