A Spatial Visual Quality Evaluation Method for an Urban Commercial Pedestrian Street Based on Streetscape Images—Taking Tianjin Binjiang Road as an Example

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this paper, the authors take the commercial pedestrian street on Binjiang Road in Tianjin as an example, presents a spatial visual quality evaluation method for urban commercial pedestrian street based on streetscape images. The manuscript is well organized, and the results enrich the existing theoretical research models and have certain theoretical meaning. Therefore, I think the paper can be accepted. In addition, the following are the few comments, which may be included while revision.

 

1.  The current title is too large, and the research in this paper is not general. Therefore, it is recommended that authors add a subtitle to reflect the Tianjin city as an example.

2. Many of the place names in Tianjin mentioned in the analysis section of the paper, such as Nanjing Road, Zhang Zizhong Road, Haihe River, Duo Lun Road, Persuasions etc., are not marked in the corresponding figures. The authors should mark them for the convenience of readers to read.

3. How are the numbers in Table 2 obtained ? What do they mean ? The author should provide corresponding explanations.

4. Table 3 gives the indicators used in this paper. What indicators are commonly used in similar studies? What are the advantages of these indicators in Table 3 compared to similar studies ?

5. What are the basis and source of the computational formulas of indicators in Table 3 ? The corresponding references should be given.

6. As the main part of the analysis, in sections 3.1 and 4.2, the authors only point out the high and low of each indicator, the analysis process is too simple.

7. Lines 469-470, “The overall level of greenery throughout the commercial pedestrianized street is at a low level, which is related to the overall high building heights in this part of the street ...”, what is the basis for this “related to”?

8. The titles of both Section 4 and Section 5 are “Discussion”.

9. The list of references should be extended to include some recent papers as follow.

1) Examining the association between the built environment and pedestrian volume using street view images.Cities, 2022(Aug.):127.

2) A multivalue cellular automata model for multilane traffic flow under lagrange coordinate.Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10588-021-09345-w

3) Contribution of streetscape features to the hedonic pricing model using Geographically Weighted Regression: Evidence from Amsterdam.Tourism management, 2022(Aug.):91.

4) Multiscale analysis of the influence of street built environment on crime occurrence using street-view images. Computers,environment and urban systems, 2022.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is an interesting study, focusing on the spatial visual quality of commercial pedestrian streets while proposing a workflow and research methodology for evaluating the quality of streets from two perspectives, visual quality and commercial quality, using a combination of streetscape images and commercial pedestrian street point of interest (POI) data. The study is an original work with extensive analyses providing new contributions to the body of knowledge in the associated field in the particular context. The authors, however, should include concise conclusions reflecting on the main findings of the study as well as any recommendations for future studies within a separate subheading/section after discussions. No further comments.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The discussion section appears twice.
2. The author needs a more detailed explanation of how the photo was taken and how to ensure the Angle. Can GaudeMap API directly provide 25~-35 and 20~-40 photos?
3. The author's assessment seems to be based on a percentage. Doesn't seem to take into account the spatial distribution of features?
4. The number of pedestrians included in the evaluation index. The target of such activities can change significantly over time, such as the weekend peak period. How does the author deal with this problem?
5. The result is presented mainly as Figure 8, which is too vague. There are no clear overall indicators or comprehensive indicators. In addition, the corresponding color and value in the figure is also confusing, and it seems that only the 0 value and the maximum value are matched. However, the same colors in different graphs correspond to different percentage values. The way of the results are presented needs to be reconsidered.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has made the necessary optimizations and I think it is now ready for publication.