Enhancing Urban Landscapes through Underground Space Utilization: Public Perceptions
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsGeneral Comments
I commend the authors for their diligent work, demonstrating a robust understanding of the subject matter. However, I have some concerns regarding the methodology. The use of questionnaires, in my humble opinion, seems to yield largely expected results. Without personal expertise in underground urban spaces, I find most conclusions logical. Given that theory suggests practical benefits from utilizing such spaces, why is it essential to gather primary data? Wouldn't secondary data usage lead to more significant insights? This issue is my primary concern. Additionally, I will address specific points within the text below.
Specific Comments
Introduction:
1. In lines 42-45, the authors state, "As a result, researchers, developers, and policy makers are increasingly realizing that the development and utilization of underground space is essential to effectively expanding the available urban space while promoting the sustainable development of cities." Considering that I have not come across any relevant studies on underground spaces recently, I must admit that this statement caught me off guard. Although I grasped the gist of it much later in the text, perhaps it would be beneficial to introduce the reader more effectively to the article's topic here. Additionally, I find the term "developers" (used at various points throughout the text) to be inappropriate.
2. In lines 45-47: 'The development of underground spaces has the advantage of minimizing the destruction of the natural environment on the surface and can contribute to solving the problems caused by the overcrowding of urban areas.' Similarly, to the previous comment, I believe that a more in-depth analysis is necessary to assist the reader and provide a better introduction to the topic.
3. In lines 71-72: 'However, the public’s view of these impacts and how residents understand their participation in related planning and management is still being studied.' With numerous studies already addressing the advantages, why is it crucial to inquire with citizens? For instance, why not conduct an analysis on secondary data to assess the impact of utilizing underground spaces on broader urban landscape improvements?
4. Following up on my previous comment, why are the three research questions mentioned in lines 83-88 significant?
Study Area and Methods:
5. The two conclusions in lines 201-207, in my opinion, are expected outcomes.
Results:
6. There are expected conclusions elsewhere, such as in lines 214-216, and as a result, there are quite high statistical indicators.
7. In section 4.2, I believe it's worth developing and substantiating further any differences.
I hope that my comments will be helpful to the authors.
Sincerely,
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We are grateful for your efforts in reviewing our manuscript entitled “Enhancing Urban Landscapes Through Underground Space Utilization: Public Perceptions (Manuscript ID: sustainability-2983570). We appreciate your invaluable and constructive comments. We have considered your comments and incorporated them into our revised paper. We have attached an explanatory letter explaining the details of the revisions to the manuscript, point by point, and the response to the your comments.In the revised paper, all amendments were highlighted in yellow. If you have any further questions or concerns, please feel free to contact us.Thank you again for your valuable comments.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe topic is interesting, data are good, article is clear
The text could be improved through these minor interventions:
a>> Criteria of choice and sources for review of cases at pages 3-4
b>> In section 3.1 more information should be provided about distinctive traits of the case study
c>> Either in discussion or in conclusion, the authors should more explicitly recall the three questions at page 3, clarifying which answers have been obtained through the research: a recapitulatory chart could maybe be useful in this sense
d>> Either in the methodological section or in the discussion, a reflection could be proposed about:
- the limitations of the potential extension of the results to other territorial contexts
- the potential impact on the analysis of the fact that the research has not been developed on a statistically representative sample of the population
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We are grateful for your efforts in reviewing our manuscript entitled “Enhancing Urban Landscapes Through Underground Space Utilization: Public Perceptions (Manuscript ID: sustainability-2983570). We appreciate your invaluable and constructive comments. We have considered your comments and incorporated them into our revised paper. We have attached an explanatory letter explaining the details of the revisions to the manuscript, point by point, and the response to the your comments.In the revised paper, all amendments were highlighted in yellow. If you have any further questions or concerns, please feel free to contact us.Thank you again for your valuable comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis research examines the utilization of subterranean space in enhancing urban landscapes and sustainability, with a particular focus on public perceptions. The topic is timely and significant, aligning well with ongoing urban development and sustainability debates. However, to strengthen the manuscript and enhance its contribution to the field, several revisions and expansions were recommended:
- Introduction Section: It would be beneficial to contextualize the discussion of urban space utilization within a global framework at the outset. Specifically, elucidate how these efforts relate to Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Additionally, a detailed examination of relevant Chinese policy frameworks would help highlight the importance of subterranean space in urban landscape improvement and sustainability.
- Literature Gaps (Lines 36-40): The discussion of urban renewal challenges could be enriched by referencing pertinent studies. Such citations would provide robust backing to the stated challenges and enhance the depth of the literature review.
- Perception and Environmental Quality (Lines 56-64): The assertion that individual perceptions aid environmental quality enhancement should be supported by additional scholarly references to solidify these claims.
- Introduction Conclusion: Conclude the introduction with a clear outline of the manuscript structure to guide the reader through the subsequent sections.
- Conceptual Framework in Section 2: There is a need for clearer narrative logic. Consider replacing the tabulation of projects in Table 1 with a literature-supported discussion. This would align the section more closely with evidence-based research practices. Furthermore, justify the use of the SEM analysis model, which appears abrupt without adequate preliminary explanation. A conceptual diagram illustrating the selected variables and their measurement methodologies, similar to DOI: 10.3390/ijgi11120626, would significantly clarify this section.
- Data Collection (Section 3.2): Detailing the questionnaire format and respondent selection process in a table would provide clarity and consistency. This approach is exemplified by DOI: 10.1080/23311886.2022.2144137 and would similarly enhance the visualization of descriptive results in Section 3.3.
- Visualization and Table Formatting (Section 3.4): Consider revising the graphical representations to avoid color and adjust the proportions to a more horizontal orientation. Each hypothesis (H1-H10) requires an explicit explanation of its constituent sub-factors.
- Analysis Enhancement (Section 4): Include an exploratory factor analysis of influencing factors and the coefficient results of the corrected SEM to provide a more comprehensive statistical backbone.
- Figure 7 Revisions: This figure should be moved forward in the text and redesigned for greater clarity and professionalism.
- Significant Factors Visualization: A graphical representation of significant impact factors from the SEM analysis, as demonstrated in the referenced papers, should be added for visual emphasis and clarity.
- Discussion Section: Each research question should be directly addressed with clear, explicit responses that tie back to the evidence presented, and aligned with current research.
- Ethical Approval: Documentation or a statement regarding ethical approval needs to be provided to comply with research integrity standards.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We are grateful for your efforts in reviewing our manuscript entitled “Enhancing Urban Landscapes Through Underground Space Utilization: Public Perceptions (Manuscript ID: sustainability-2983570). We appreciate your invaluable and constructive comments. We have considered your comments and incorporated them into our revised paper. We have attached an explanatory letter explaining the details of the revisions to the manuscript, point by point, and the response to the your comments.In the revised paper, all amendments were highlighted in yellow. If you have any further questions or concerns, please feel free to contact us.Thank you again for your valuable comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease see the attached review report!
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Moderate editing of English language required!
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We are grateful for your efforts in reviewing our manuscript entitled “Enhancing Urban Landscapes Through Underground Space Utilization: Public Perceptions (Manuscript ID: sustainability-2983570). We appreciate your invaluable and constructive comments. We have considered your comments and incorporated them into our revised paper. We have attached an explanatory letter explaining the details of the revisions to the manuscript, point by point, and the response to the your comments.In the revised paper, all amendments were highlighted in yellow. If you have any further questions or concerns, please feel free to contact us.Thank you again for your valuable comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
Thank you for addressing my comments and revising your manuscript accordingly. I appreciate the thoughtful consideration you have given to my concerns, and I am satisfied with the improvements made. I believe the revised manuscript is now suitable for publication in Sustainability.
Best regards,
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe improvement in the expository aspects as well as in the argumentation and order of the methodology is substantial.
The article now succeeds in clearly stating its objectives and demonstrating that it is an exercise of interest.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAccept in present form!
