Identification and Management of Epidemic Hazard Areas for Urban Sustainability: A Case Study of Tongzhou, China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

In this paper, spatial design network analysis (sDNA), spatial autocorrelation analysis and geographical weighted regression analysis (GWR) were applied to identify potential risk roads, epidemic hazard areas and risk areas of various infrastructure in Tongzhou City. This study has certain practical research value, however, considering the following problems, the author should further modify and improve the paper to meet the publication standard.

 

1. Highlight research gaps: the literature review in the introduction mentions some existing studies, but the limitations and shortcomings of these studies need to be more clearly pointed out. For example, the author can highlight the inadequacies of previous studies in analyzing the impact of urban infrastructure on the spread of epidemics, thereby highlighting the importance of this study.

 

2. Identify research contributions: although the content of the research is mentioned in the introduction, the specific contribution and innovation of the research can be more clearly defined. It is suggested that a new paragraph be added to the introduction devoted to the main contributions of this study.

 

3. Clarify the significance of research area: When describing the choice of the study area, the author should further clarify why Tongzhou District is of research significance. For example, the author can elaborate on the specificity of this area compared with other areas during the epidemic.

 

4. Data Cleaning Details: When referring to data cleaning and correction steps, the author should describe in more detail what specific standards or methods are used to ensure the accuracy of the data. This will help the reader understand the rigor of the data processing.

 

5. Link Methods to Objectives: In the description of each method, clearly indicate how these methods help to achieve the ultimate goal of the research. In particular, when using methods such as sDNA and GWR, further illustrate how these technologies can help identify epidemic risk areas.

 

6. Further explanation of the grid analysis: when describing the grid analysis, it is further explained why the 1000m*1000m grid was chosen and how the analysis at this scale affects the results are suggested supplement. Consider adding some background information to explain the advantages of grid analysis in spatial statistics.

 

7. Elaboration of GWR model analysis: When describing the results of the GWR model, it is recommended to explain in more detail the choice of model parameters and their impact on the results. In addition, the advantages of the GWR model and why it was chosen in this study can be supplemented.

 

8. Check and correct the references: The quotation format in the conclusions part is wrong and the author should correct it. “Compared with initial studies that relied only on data such as POIs and roads to identify agglomerations to predict epidemiological hazard areas and simple geostatistical analyses using actual endemic data [Error! Reference source not found.], this study achieves refined, hierarchical control and optimisation of individual facilities.”  In addition, some related works can be included, such as https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.119873

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The Quality of English Language can be improved. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

 

First of all, we are very grateful to you for taking the time and effort to review our manuscript and providing us with very good feedback. Secondly, we have revised the paper according to your suggestions. We have marked the revised parts. This makes it easy for you to focus on the marked sections while checking the full text. I will respond to all revisions one by one in a reply letter with line numbers. All revision and line number information is based on the revision markup model in Microsoft word.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors are to be commended for a detailed geographical analysis.  However, the practical relevance of this detailed analysis is questionable.

If a potential pandemic virus emerges with asymptomatic transmission, as happened with COVID-19, and if it emerges before the Chinese New Year, as again happened with COVID-19, then the massive population flux across the country by all modes of transport (i.e. rail and air, as well as road), will spread the virus quite quickly, before quarantine measures can be effective.

So while this study of Tongzhou is interesting, the practical value of the conclusions is unclear.   At the very least, the authors should explain through further analysis how their results would have helped with COVID-19 epidemic control at the end of 2019, and early 2020.

The authors might consider not just the original pandemic virus, but the dangerous variants as well.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of the English language is quite good.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

 

First of all, we are very grateful to you for taking the time and effort to review our manuscript and providing us with very good feedback. Secondly, we have revised the paper according to your suggestions. We have marked the revised parts. This makes it easy for you to focus on the marked sections while checking the full text. I will respond to all revisions one by one in a reply letter with line numbers. All revision and line number information is based on the revision markup model in Microsoft word.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper identifies urban epidemic hazards and management strategies in Tongzhou, China. Here are some suggestions for further improvement:

1.     Please move the research framework section to the methods part.

2.     The contribution of the paper can be strengthened.

3.     The criteria for the road network risk assessment mentioned in the study need to be clearer, particularly regarding how specific thresholds for "high risk" or "low risk" are defined.

4.     The section on "Analysis of epidemic areas with high incidence" is brief. More detailed data analysis results should be provided to support the conclusions.

5.     When comparing actual hazardous areas with identified hazardous areas, the reasons for any differences between the two should be discussed in greater detail.

6.     It is suggested to add more descriptions of the geographical features of Tongzhou District, such as terrain, geomorphology, and transportation network layout, to help better contextualize the research background.

7.     It would be helpful to suggest improvements for the insufficient identification of risk areas in the Yizhuang and Songzhuang regions, which are distant from the river.

 

8.     The conclusion includes the phrase "Error! The Reference source was not found." Please check and correct this error.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

尊敬的评论者：

 

首先，我们非常感谢您花时间和精力审阅我们的手稿，并为我们提供了非常好的反馈。其次，我们根据您的建议修改了论文。我们已经标记了修订后的部分。这使您在检查全文时可以轻松地专注于标记的部分。我将在一封带有行号的回复信中逐一回复所有修订。所有修订版和行号信息都基于 Microsoft Word 中的修订标记模型。

Dear Reviewer:

 

First of all, we are very grateful to you for taking the time and effort to review our manuscript and providing us with very good feedback. Secondly, we have revised the paper according to your suggestions. We have marked the revised parts. This makes it easy for you to focus on the marked sections while checking the full text. I will respond to all revisions one by one in a reply letter with line numbers. All revision and line number information is based on the revision markup model in Microsoft word.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents an in-depth study on urban epidemic hazard identification and management, with a focus on Tongzhou District, Beijing, China. The study utilizes spatial design network analysis (sDNA), spatial autocorrelation, and geographically weighted regression (GWR) to identify potentially risky roads, hazard areas, and infrastructure that may contribute to the spread of pandemics. The research provides significant insights into urban sustainability and public health security by proposing methods to manage and control epidemic risks based on spatial data. However, there are several areas where the manuscript could be improved to enhance its clarity, depth, and scientific rigor.

1. Introduction: The literature review needs to be expanded. Current references are somewhat limited, particularly in the context of recent developments in urban epidemic management and spatial analysis. Incorporating more recent and diverse studies, including international research, would strengthen the foundation and relevance of the study.

2. The manuscript relies on data from a limited period (May to December 2022). This narrow timeframe could impact the generalizability of the findings. A discussion on how the timing of data collection might affect the results is necessary. Additionally, please consider whether the same patterns would emerge under different conditions or across longer timeframes.

3. There is a need for more discussion on the limitations of POI data and potential inaccuracies in the spatial representation of infrastructure.

4. The quality of the figures and visualizations needs improvement. Several figures are unclear, with low resolution and insufficient detail in legends.

5. The discussion section should be more comprehensive. Currently, it lacks depth in terms of analyzing the broader implications of the findings. Specifically, the manuscript should discuss how these results could inform urban planning and public health policy beyond Tongzhou.

6. Please add a more detailed discussion on the potential strategies for improving epidemic risk predictions, including the integration of additional data sources or the refinement of analytical models.

7. I also recommend the authors include a summary table comparing identified hazard areas with actual epidemic outcomes, which could provide a clearer overview of the model's effectiveness and strengthen the manuscript’s presentation.

8. The conclusion should offer specific recommendations for future research and practical applications, while clearly stating the study's contributions to urban sustainability and epidemic management.

9. Language: The manuscript contains minor grammatical errors and some awkward phrasing. A thorough review for language and clarity is recommended.

10. Some references are missing key details, such as page numbers or DOI links.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript contains minor grammatical errors and some awkward phrasing. A thorough review for language and clarity is recommended.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

 

First of all, we are very grateful to you for taking the time and effort to review our manuscript and providing us with very good feedback. Secondly, we have revised the paper according to your suggestions. We have marked the revised parts. This makes it easy for you to focus on the marked sections while checking the full text. I will respond to all revisions one by one in a reply letter with line numbers. All revision and line number information is based on the revision markup model in Microsoft word.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Many items are revised well. Some problems should be fixed further. 

1、In Section 1, author :"Previous studies have only examined a single indicator without integrating the two for comprehensive analysis. As a  result, the results do not truly reflect the impact of urban operational mechanisms on the  spread of epidemics" . Please give detail example to illustrate the idea.

2、The equations in the paper are not written in good manners. Please rewrite them. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English can be improved. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

 

Firstly, we would like to thank you very much for taking the time and effort to review our manuscript a second time and for providing us with very good feedback. Secondly, we have revised the paper according to your suggestions. We have marked the revised parts. This makes it easy for you to focus on the marked sections while checking the full text. I will respond to all revisions one by one in a reply letter with line numbers. All revision and line number information is based on the revision markup model in Microsoft word.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed a very complex and challenging problem, and this paper is a useful contribution in tackling some of the key issues.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

In line 15, 'New Twon' should be 'New Town'.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

 

Firstly, we would like to thank you very much for taking the time and effort to review our manuscript a second time and for providing us with very good feedback. Secondly, we have revised the paper according to your suggestions. We have marked the revised parts. This makes it easy for you to focus on the marked sections while checking the full text. I will respond to all revisions one by one in a reply letter with line numbers. All revision and line number information is based on the revision markup model in Microsoft word.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed all the comments. There are no further comments. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

 

Firstly, we would like to thank you very much for taking the time and effort to review our manuscript a second time and for providing us with very good feedback. Secondly, we have revised the paper according to your suggestions. We have marked the revised parts. This makes it easy for you to focus on the marked sections while checking the full text. I will respond to all revisions one by one in a reply letter with line numbers. All revision and line number information is based on the revision markup model in Microsoft word.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Thanks for your excellent work in thoroughly addressing my concerns and suggestions. The content and quality of the paper have significantly improved. I have no further major comments. Before accepting for publication, I'd like to recommend that the authors review the paper as a whole,  esp. perhaps simplifying the conclusion slightly. You might consider consolidating the main points into a single paragraph while retaining the key elements.

Author Response

尊敬的评论者：

首先，我们非常感谢您花时间和精力再次审阅我们的手稿，并为我们提供非常好的反馈。其次，我们根据您的建议修改了论文。我们已经标记了修订后的部分。这使您在检查全文时可以轻松地专注于标记的部分。我将在一封带有行号的回复信中逐一回复所有修订。所有修订版和行号信息都基于 Microsoft Word 中的修订标记模型。

 

Dear Reviewer:

First of all, we are very grateful to you for taking the time and effort to review our manuscript and providing us with very good feedback. Secondly, we have revised the paper according to your suggestions. We have marked the revised parts. This makes it easy for you to focus on the marked sections while checking the full text. I will respond to all revisions one by one in a reply letter with line numbers. All revision and line number information is based on the revision markup model in Microsoft word.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf