Research on the Influencing Factors of Spatial Vitality of Night Parks Based on AHP–Entropy Weights
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe author of this manuscript has carried out research on the night tour park, which has scientific research value. However, the authors still need to make great progress in research methods and paper writing. According to the manuscript, the following suggestions are put forward:
1. The authors have outlined the use of two techniques, Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and entropy weights, to obtain more accurate composite weights, termed as AHP-Entropy Weights. You introduced a method to balance the bias introduced by subjective factors in AHP by incorporating an objective approach, which is reasonable. Subsequently, The authors applied AHP to the raw data and computed the Consistency Ratio (CR) and Consistency Index (CI), with the result showing a CI value of 0.00, indicating complete consistency in the judgment matrix without logical errors.
However, starting from line 406, the authors directly integrated the two methods (AHP and Entropy Weights) and calculated the cumulative weights, followed by a series of conclusions on the evaluation system. Is there empirical support for using cumulative weights for evaluation? What is the consistency status of CI and CR values after using cumulative weights? What are the advantages of using cumulative weights compared to a single method? Is there empirical support for this? I believe that addressing why a combination of two methods is utilized by looking back at a certain method would be more beneficial.
2. It is recommended to use diagrams in the “Results and analyses” section to express the relevant results more clearly.
“3.2.3” line 405, in addition to calculating the specific value, it is also necessary to explain the results in words.
3. The “Discussion” section needs more in-depth analysis. This section should include a lot of comparisons and discussions with previous studies, but such as the third point (line 464-479) discussed in the manuscript has no references.
4. There are still many details in the manuscript that need to be revised. Here are some examples:
(1) The unit information in the line 9 does not show which author is from this unit.
(2) Figure 1 is not very indicative, and it is not clear where the park is located in the second small picture.
(3) The reference description method is not uniform, such as line 597-601, reference 21-23; line 619-622, reference 33, 34. In addition, there are many inconsistencies in the reference, such as the publication year is marked in different places.
(4) Since this is an English journal, can text in other languages ​​appear, such as “熵”?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis manuscript on the research of nighttime park space vitality has certain academic value and practical significance. It has selected representative cases for study, constructed an evaluation index system and weight distribution method, enhancing the scientific nature and accuracy of the research. However, the research method lacks innovation. Many papers have been published using AHP and entropy weight methods for vitality evaluation. Therefore, it is not recommended to publish this paper.
Specific improvements and enhancements for this paper include:
1. Considering the widespread application of AHP and entropy weight methods in the vitality evaluation field, it is suggested that the author seeks more innovative methods or improves upon the AHP and entropy weight methods to enhance the novelty and uniqueness of the research.
2. Although representative cases were selected for the study, further in-depth analysis of these cases can be conducted, combining specific data and examples to demonstrate their performance and the extent of their influence under various factors, thereby strengthening the empirical analysis capability of the research.
3. In the conclusion and recommendations section, specific planning and management suggestions can be further clarified, proposing concrete improvement plans based on the research results to maximize the vitality of nighttime park spaces.
4. While the paper has already explored certain aspects of innovation and practicality, it can further highlight its value in academic research and practical application to enhance the paper's attractiveness and impact.
In summary, it is recommended that the author improve the choice of research methods and the depth of study to increase the novelty and uniqueness of the paper, thereby enhancing its academic value and practical significance.
Comments on the Quality of English Languageno
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsGreetings,
The paper needs to be better analyzed. A factor analysis was performed, but there are no grouping results from this analysis. Insert that analysis. Then the application of the AHP method is to determine the weights using subjective ratings, while the Entropy method uses the initial decision matrix to calculate the weights. Factor analysis determines how the questions are grouped, and if it is used, it cannot be grouped as desired but as its results give. Because of this, all the analysis is afterwards questionable as to how the criteria were grouped using these methods. For this reason, the paper is returned to the authors to group the data using the results of the factor analysis and then to determine the weights of these groups. I understand what the authors wanted to do, but they made a mistake because they mixed multivariate analysis with multicriteria analysis, and they did it superficially. It is necessary to additionally correct the paper in order for the analysis to be correct and for the paper to be accepted.
All the best.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have made significant improvements to the manuscript, which now essentially meets the requirements for publication. There are still some details that are recommended for revision.
1. The introduction establishes the relevance of night parks to the night-time economy effectively. However, it could benefit from a more concise definition of "spatial vitality" early on, to set the context for readers unfamiliar with the term.
2. The author should ensure that terminology is consistent (e.g., using either 'night parks' or 'nighttime parks' consistently) to improve the professional quality of the manuscript. Or do these two terms inherently represent different meanings?
Author Response
Dear Reviewers.
We would like to thank the reviewers for their valuable and helpful suggestions on our manuscript entitled "Research on the Influencing Factors of Spatial Vitality of Night Parks Based on AHP-Entropy Weights" (Article, Manuscript No. sustainability-3000891).We studied these comments extensively and addressed all the issues raised by the reviewers. The manuscript has been revised accordingly, and the changes are highlighted in red. Detailed responses to the reviewers' comments are provided below.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper provides a systematic analysis of the research on nighttime spatial vitality, and attempts to evaluate the influencing factors through the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Entropy Weight Method, which has certain innovation and academic value. The article has significantly improved in quality through overall revisions, with a clear structure and scientifically reasonable data analysis methods, which has reference significance for the study of nighttime spatial vitality. However, there are still some shortcomings in the indicator selection and conclusion section of the paper, which need further revision and improvement.
1. The paper did not fully highlight the characteristics of night parks in indicator selection. It is recommended to add indicators that reflect the uniqueness of night parks, such as lighting quality and layout, safety, and types of night activities. These indicators can more accurately reflect the vitality of nighttime space, enhance the pertinence and scientificity of research.
2. The conclusion section fails to fully reflect the uniqueness of night parks. It is recommended to specify the specific influencing factors of night parks, analyze and demonstrate the actual effects of night parks in lighting design, safety measures, and night activity arrangements based on actual cases, and propose targeted suggestions to enhance the vitality of night parks, so as to make the research conclusions more in-depth and have practical guidance significance.
Author Response
Please refer to the annex
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors did not do anything regarding the factor analysis, there are no results of this method. Loading is missing and the authors used an eigenvector (math.). Then they didn't even explain which papers they took the criteria from. Where is the initial matrix based on which the entropy values were calculated. This method uses the same decision matrix as alternative ranking methods. It is debatable from what to calculate these values. Then, nowhere was it explained how the weights were calculated using the AHP method. The AHP method uses the comparison of all values and care should be taken to ensure that the comparison is consistent. Therefore, my position is that this paper should be rejected again.
Author Response
Please refer to the annex.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsN/A
Author Response
Thank you very much for your valuable comments making the manuscript readable and scientifically sound.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsRegards,
No matter how much I return the paper and reject it, the editor pushes him to accept it. Just to explain to me if the factor analysis showed that there are only two factors, what is then broken down into 6 groups using the AHP method. So it was shown that there are only two groups and not six.
All the best.
Author Response
Many thanks to the reviewers whose valuable comments made the manuscript more readable and scientifically sound. Validity study is used to analyse whether the research item is reasonable and meaningful. Validity analysis uses factor analysis as a method of data analysis, through KMO value, common degree, variance explained rate value, factor loading coefficient value and other indicators for comprehensive analysis, in order to verify the validity level of the data, KMO value is used to determine the degree of suitability of information extraction, common degree value is used to exclude the irrational research items, variance explained rate value is used to illustrate the level of information extraction, the factor loading coefficient is used to measure the relationship between factors (dimensions) and questions. The factor loading coefficients are used to measure the correspondence between the factors (dimensions) and the items. From the table, it can be seen that: the common degree values corresponding to all the research items are higher than 0.4, which indicates that the information of the research items can be extracted effectively. In addition, the KMO value is 0.979, which is greater than 0.6, the data can be effectively extracted to take the information. In addition, the variance explained values of the 2 selected factors are 65.279%,6.279% respectively, and the cumulative variance explained after rotation is 71.558%>50%. It means that the amount of information of the research item can be extracted effectively.The AHP was selected from the six dimensions of the factors affecting the spatial vitality of the park, in which the six dimensions contain different programme layers, a total of 17 indicators, and the final result of the article is to discuss and analyse the indicators with higher weights selected from the 17 indicators.
