Defining Inner-City Transitional Street Typology Using Point of Interest (PoI) Data in Hillside Cities of China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

thank you for Your clear and structured work. I find it relevant in the context of streetscape research with the focus on typological challenge.

My comments and suggestions aim at improving readability and understanding of Your work and are listed as follows.

A. MAJOR CHANGES

1. I suggest to rethink the title and integrate the main focus of the research (location) into the first part of the title and remove the second added part of the title - case study.

2. Classification results (lines 327-362) would work better as a table while comments in the text should summarise that table in comparative discursive way.

3. Figures need an upgrade - better frames and interconnection between parts:

Fig.1.: missing wider urban situation of the case study district - research scope figure part should have wider frame and area of for research could be marked on it.

Fig.2.: missing explanation of the colouring scheme

Fig.3. and 4: are too small

Fig. 5.: needs description for short marks (Co, Tr, Sh...) - these abbreviations could be placed beside the upper long names for example Traffic function (Tr) or/and placed in the Figure description.

Fig. 6.-11.: b part is very unreadable because of the scale and very dark colours. It would be better to mark line on b and add clear plan (layout) if available. The c images are very narrow and focused the position of their view should be marked on plan. Is the photo-documentation (c) also according to the 36 source? It would be better if it is Yours.

 

B. MINOR CHANGES

4. Why 200x200 grid? How was that determined? I am not saying it is problematic, I would just suggest to add description of the criteria and/or reasons for this dimension in the methodology.

5. I suggest to rewrite the conclusion or to add more clearly statement for general conclusions such as: "This classification enriches the study of urban internal streets and provides more detailed and practical information for urban design and planning " - enriches how exactly? which information for planning and which for design?

6. Discuss if Your research method is applicable in general or just for small studies? How time consuming it was? What do You believe the benefits of using these tools are?

7. In Table 1, please add column with the years of the observed guidelines. Criteria for choosing guidelines should be stated (LINE 85). And also I suggest to Author/s to try to address the comparison of the guidelines - it could be diagram/figure by matching common definitions under different type of street according to the analysed guidelines or just textual more detail elaboration.

I hope You will find suggestions constructive and helpful.

Sincerely, best wishes.

Author Response

Dear Reviewers,

 

We sincerely thank you for your insightful comments and suggestions regarding our manuscript. Your feedback has been instrumental in enhancing the quality and clarity of our work.

 

We have made every effort to ensure the revisions are clear and concise. These changes have significantly improved the manuscript. Please see the attachment.

 

We appreciate the opportunity to revise our manuscript based on your feedback and look forward to any further suggestions that might help us improve it. We hope that the revised manuscript now meets all the criteria for publication.

 

Thank you once again for your thorough review and constructive critique.

 

Best wishes

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper presents a novel methodology to classify function type and its spatial distribution of inner-city transitional streets. The methodology is developed (and tested) based on a field case study in Chongquing. The study is original, not only because it focuses on a particular type of street as a transition space providing several services to inhabitants but also because it approaches the hillside condition of the city, albeit in very little depth in the current state of the study.  Hence, it was a little disappointing not to find this topographical condition in the model or the street mapping. For example, what is the steepness of each 200x200 tile of the grid, and does it correlate with the functional classification? As the topographical issue is addressed in the introduction (3^rd question – line 68), the role of the mountainous context in the model's development should be clarified.

Otherwise, the objectives and structure of the study are clear and well organized. The method is simple and easily reproducible. Section 6 discusses in a relevant manner the findings of the study.

Minor corrections:

-        Add the definition of CB in the intro (line 43)   

-        Figure 3: the colors of the legend are not clear

-        Figure 5:  use the same color code as Figure 4

Author Response

Dear Reviewers,

 

We sincerely thank you for your insightful comments and suggestions regarding our manuscript. Your feedback has been instrumental in enhancing the quality and clarity of our work.

 

We have made every effort to ensure the revisions are clear and concise. These changes have significantly improved the manuscript. Please see the attachment.

 

We appreciate the opportunity to revise our manuscript based on your feedback and look forward to any further suggestions that might help us improve it. We hope that the revised manuscript now meets all the criteria for publication.

 

Thank you once again for your thorough review and constructive critique.

 

Best wishes

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.      The title could be revised to: "Defining Inner-City Transitional Street Typology Using Point of Interest (PoI) Data in Hillside Cities of China: A Case Study of Chongqing".

2.      The abstract is overall written well, but strengthening the results section to provide clear evidence of the superiority of PoI data in defining street typology would improve the understanding of the study's contributions.

3.      The introduction is inadequately written, lacking a seamless connection and progression in presenting the background, research gap, and scope of the study. The study did not discuss the rationale behind the selection of Chongqing for this study. This impedes a clear understanding of the study’s contribution to the existing literature.

4.      There are several language-related issues, such as authors have used CBD directly in the introduction without defining it first; in line 108, the full form of PoI is used; the O in PoI is capitalized in Figure 2; legends in some of the figures are not visible, please revise; the quality of figure b and c in 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 needs improvement; line 193, why T is capital in “Tourism”.

5.      Section 5, "Classification of Transitional Street," just defines the various streets without any discussion on how it is relevant to the present study or how it contributes to the existing literature. It is suggested that connecting this section more explicitly to the study's objectives and discussing its implications for urban planning or transportation research would enhance its significance.

 

6.      Section 6, the heading is not appropriate, and sometimes the information feels redundant and repetitive. Also, the information feels more like a discussion. Thus, it needs a more appropriate heading. In addition, authors need to find a better way to present their findings with a particular emphasis on contribution to the literature.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required.

Author Response

Dear Reviewers,

 

We sincerely thank you for your insightful comments and suggestions regarding our manuscript. Your feedback has been instrumental in enhancing the quality and clarity of our work.

 

We have made every effort to ensure the revisions are clear and concise. These changes have significantly improved the manuscript. Please see the attachment.

 

We appreciate the opportunity to revise our manuscript based on your feedback and look forward to any further suggestions that might help us improve it. We hope that the revised manuscript now meets all the criteria for publication.

 

Thank you once again for your thorough review and constructive critique.

 

Best wishes

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors (and Editors),

thank you for this opportunity for me to contribute as a reviewer of this work. I find this research important and valuable. The methodology is in the revision manuscript more clear and figures are better and easier to understand.

I suggest to Authors to read their work one more time very carefully and check if any parts need review in order to be more precise and clear. Therefore I suggest to accept this article after minor revision for which there is no need to further review this paper after that. Here are the lines and parts in which I believe that minor changes would be of great help:

Abstract

LINE 23 "Specifically, it delineates eight main types of transitional streets in the CBD of Chongqing, a prototypical hillside city." a prototypical hillside city in China? or in general? Please whenever you can be as precise as you can be. Also through the article please elaborate how and why this is prototypical so that this is understood by readers with various backgrounds and knowledge.

LINE 28 "Moreover, the results contribute significantly to optimising urban spatial planning in hillside cities of China, clearly demonstrating the superiority of PoI data in defining street typology and enhancing our understanding of urban functional dynamics" superiority over what? superiority is really strong word for scientific article where it is important to write facts (or to have proof for chosen phrases).

 

Introduction

LINE 39 "Within the urban core, the Central Business District (CBD) concentrates" it is not clear what is urban core? historical part of the city? the most integrated part of the city? or the whole city? Please be clear especially in definitions.

LINE 44 "The inner-city residential areas, situated immediately adjacent to the CBD, feature streets that not only impact the reach of the" are You speaking about inner-city residential areas in general or in regard to specific city? Overall, please state in the Introduction why this city was chosen to be a study, how it is representative and for what. See also next comment

LINE 50-51 "that display unique environmental characteristics due to their diverse and complex nature [6], [7]. particularly emphasised in mountainous cities like Chongqing, where..." Please check the whole paper if there are any typing errors because here You have small letter after dot in the word "Particularly" or proofread your manuscript. This sentence mentions Chongqing therefore here would be a good place to add few more context about this city for the readers who are not familiar with it.

LINE 58 "This research innovates by treating streets as multifunctional and complex urban spaces, aiming to develop a new methodological framework for identifying and categorising transitional streets in hillside cities, mainly focusing on Chongqing’s Yuzhong district." innovated what? methodology? which methodology and for what? again innovates is a strong word for scientific language and article, please consider to review your article by deleting all unnecessary elements which are not article facts.

LINE 61 "This district exemplifies the typical challenges faced by hillside urban areas where limited flat land influences street development and functional distribution" Here is a great opportunity to mention the size of that district which is the focus of the research and article.

LINES 62-64 "The unique vertical dimension of Chongqing's urban environment leads to distinct patterns of pedestrian and vehicular traffic, impacting the overall accessibility and connectivity between different parts of the city" unique in relation to what? world? is that important to state? Also add general facts about vertical dimension - what did you had in mind here? impacting whom? pedestrians or all types of movement/transport/traffic or even other layers?

LINE 115 "In the multidimensional street classification system, the adjacent land use characteristics and the facade business features are the most crucial factors" Please be careful in writing these general sentences: "the most crucial" is again very strong description and is it needed here with the superlative form is that proven is it a quote or paraphrasing? > crucial for what? for identifying type of street? for evaluating the street walkability? for its redesign and planning? Furthermore, reading the sentence there is a lot of similar words being mixed here characteristics, features and factors - please check and rethink what to use here. Facade business is vary vague although You define it but is not understandable to me from the categories which you later mention. I would suggest rewriting the sentence in more clear and precise manner, something like:

> The adjacent land use and facade features are significant factors in the multidimensional street classification system for identifying the street design types.

LINE 124 "Upon integrating and analysing nine street design guidelines" please add a reference to Table 1 here again. Also it would be advisable to add as a reference a book Streets and Patterns by Stephen Marshall which also has at the end overview of classifications by various guidelines and laws. Overall, in this paragraph, if guidelines are also in the reference list they should be cited with their numbers in this paragraph when referring to them.

LINE 457 "Additionally, a few street types that do not align with the actual functionalities of transitional streets have been excluded from the study and are not included in the final classification." is it possible to be more precise than "a few street types"?

LINE 497 Please, overall, check the usage of the words crucial and critical. Rethink if they are necessary for the research message to be received and understood.

LINES 468-487 I am not sure if I understood  correctly: do You suggest that shopping streets are different from all other categorise mentioned in this (quite long and I presume very important) paragraph? Mentioned are: commercial, special and pedestrian streets. If correct the paragraph has addressed difference from commercial streets but fails to address differences/distinctions from special and pedestrian streets.

LINE 507 why are Landscape Streets here written with large starting letters (UPPERCASE) while before with small? "The design and maintenance of Landscape Streets should emphasise their role in the urban ecosystem"

The same question goes for the LINE 520? "Considering Heavily Trafficked Streets as an independent category is crucial for the current public transit-dominated urban transportation model..." again reconsider word crucial, it is used quite often.

Also check large starting letters in LINE 553 "Unclassified Area Streets present unique challenges and opportunities in urban planning and design." and later LINES 556 "Similar to Alleys, Pedestrian-only streets, Laneways and Alleys, and Streets in Informal Areas in street design"

 

If entire Chapter 5 (Classification of Transitional Streets) is not discussion, since currently this comes later in Chapter 6, that means that Chapter 5 is synthesis of results? If that is correct, I think that better connection needs to established with the analyses and results - from where some of these conclusions come from? Particularly in regard to expressions with words "crucial / vital / key..." as well as the next list of expressions which I find vague.

What exactly did You had in mind under following expressions and lines:

LINE 453 "...elevated structure improvement streets..."?

LINE 466 "...optimising urban functional layouts and designs"?

LINE 486 "...more effective commercial promotion areas, optimising consumer experiences, and fostering economic growth"?

LINE 521 "... is one of the key strategies for achieving more efficient and sustainable urban transport goals."

LINE 533 "require meticulous planning"

LINE 535 "especially in emerging tourist cities or cities developing their tourism sector" - is the analysed city emerging tourist city? Please repeat that here if yes, and make a connection to the research case study in that way.

LINE 543 "fully use urban space"

LINE 550 "These streets should be prioritised in future urban planning. They can serve as models to be effectively spread to other parts of cities, thereby maximising the use of urban space and increasing socio-economic benefits." not sure that I understand why they should be prioritised? how You prove that or form where do you conclude that / which facts confirm it? Is this necessary even for the article?

LINE 560 "Still, they provide essential pathways for residents, linking different city functional areas" - seems very random sentence? As if, this can be said for any street?

LINE 580 "complex interactions among street functions" - maybe name these functions and interaction possibility which can be detected using Your method unlike other methods?

Please state more clearly if here in the LINE 583 ("The study addressed three key questions. First...") You are referring to the initial described three research questions? 

LINE 605 "thereby opening new avenues for research and application" - I think that avenues here is wrong word because it can be confused with the street typology.

LINE 625 "transformative perspective for stock planning and development..." - what is transformative perspective? in which way?

LINE 619 "terms of applicability, ..." applicability to what? what for?

LINE 651 "detailed and actionable information for infrastructure development" what is actionable information?

LINES 653 and 655 have multiple spacing at the beginning of the sentences.

 

LINES 670-675 seem redundant to me and I would suggest to just delete it because it raises questions instead of offering overall conclusion, questions like: validated in practice through what? which perspective? what does mean to promote further the efficient use? "In conclusion, this research offers an innovative classification method validated in practice and provides new perspectives and tools for comprehensive urban planning and management. The continued exploration of this method across various urban settings, especially in hillside cities, promises to promote further the efficient use of urban space and sustainable development."

 

I wish to again commend the figures, they are now much easier to follow. Please think about adding description in Figure 1 where You explain what is Your contribution in the figure, the source is just the base-map I presume here. Source of figures should be in continuation of the description and not in new raw for the readablity and better understanding. I would also add numerical value of areas for the district and research scope in Figure 1. Furthermore, if figures of streets (profiles/as crossections) would be added to Table 3, the understanding of the research would be improved significantly (but it is not necessary to be added in this current article).

 

I sincerely wish You all the best and good luck in future research.

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewers,

 

We sincerely appreciate your time and effort in reviewing our manuscript and providing constructive feedback. Your detailed comments have been invaluable in highlighting areas for improvement and have significantly guided our revision process.

 

In response to your suggestions, we have carefully re-evaluated the manuscript and made targeted revisions to address the identified shortcomings. A particular focus was placed on refining the precision of our terminology and language to enhance the rigour and clarity of our arguments. This scrutiny has led to numerous adjustments that have substantially improved the manuscript.

 

We are grateful for the opportunity to refine our work based on your insights and hope these revisions meet your expectations for publication standards. We remain open to further suggestions and are committed to enhancing the manuscript to its utmost potential.

 

Thank you once again for your thorough and insightful critique. Below, we provide detailed responses to your comments, clearly outlining how we have integrated your valuable feedback into our revised manuscript. Due to the detailed nature of the revisions, not all changes are listed here. For complete details, please refer to Attachment 2 (manuscript revised).

 

Warm regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed all my comments. I have no further comments. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your recognition and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We appreciate your comment on the need to improve our referencing.

In response to your suggestion, we have carefully reviewed and enhanced our references to ensure they are comprehensive and accurately support the manuscript. This revision aims to better align our work with scholarly standards and to provide a clearer context for our findings.

We are grateful for your insights, which have helped refine our paper. Thank you once again for your valuable input.

Warm regards