Reconceptualizing Proximity Measurement Approaches through the Urban Discourse on the X-Minute City
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper is very methoditacal and very well elaborated. The authors have presented research very sistematically and in a logical manner. I my personal opinion, it deals with very important topic and it is very relevant for the current state of the art. My comments deal with minor recommendations regarding formating and few necessary elaborations:
- Line 10- I believe it is more accurate to state that Covid-19 have prompted a heightened focus on the x-minute city concept, rather than it emerged than.
- Line 30-31- sentence One of these significant challenges is the legacy of UN-Sustainable Development Goals UN-SDGs that recommend against car-oriented city organisations and the hierarchy of road networks- is nit clear- is the recommend right word? Maybe advocates
- Line 93- I would recommend authors to use systematic literature review as a term to describe methodology applied
- Line 128 - Please elaborate exclusion of 55 records that were estimated as irrelevant to the research topic.
- Line 300 -Approach 3: Building catchment area seems less important than others, is this a case? If not, please describe and illustrate on the same level as others.
- Line 357 and 367: it seems like a subsection is missing after approach 6 and before Table 1. Table 1 is not adequately referenced in the text.
- Figure 8- I would recommend authors to use planimetric diagram. Selected visual representation gives impression that regional scale is equal to urban block.
- Line 397 - It would be beneficial to elaborate or give examples of Physical factors, Socioeconomic factors, and Environmental factors. Figure 10 does not contain so many elements to be shown as it currently is. It can be horizontal with reduced distance between nodes.
- Table 2 is not very clear and understandable. Does it shows the gaps identified by authors in analyzed articles or it maps representation while gaps are observed/discussed by authors of this manuscript?- please elaborate since the table and following text are not in line.
- Authors are advised to list limitations of their study as well.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your responses. All comments have been addressed point by point.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe documentation is extensive and shows a thorough knowledge of the field, many articles being reviewed and analyzed. So, a complex bibliographic study.
The explanation of abbreviations should be mentioned where they are presented for the first time.
For example:
- POI (Point of interest) should be specified on line 208 instead of line 253
- SDGs at line 92 instead of 469
- PCR test, MC concept
The authors use the PRISMA protocol to evaluate the articles containing the measure of proximity in the context of "cities of x minutes".
The analysis performed based on the PRISMA protocol is a quality one. In conclusion, the scientific content is good, the solutions found are relevant and provide a starting point for evaluating cities with x minutes in the context of increasing the number of vehicles leading to congestion.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your responses. All comments have been addressed point by point.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear author,
it is a comprehensive review, but still has a little detailed problem. So, for the quality of the journal, I prefer to make a decision about major revision and reconsider.
1. For the PRISMA method to review the x-minute city’s field, it is necessary to add more citations about this method to strengthen the discussion about the validity of this research field.
2. For ‘chrono-urbanism,’ it is a fascinating idea to reflect on the situation in urban life. However, there is a lack of debate on this concept. First, the birth of this concept is not well demonstrated in the review part, and in the last part of the paper, there is no convincible recall.
3. For searching the raw material part, you have searched about 3583 articles, and you used an automatic tool to clean 90% of the raw material. It is a controversy. Why do you need to clean so much raw article? What could the principle of the automatic tool be? The basement of the review, that is, the rest of the article, could have some sustainable purpose.
4. The discussion of different approaches should have a clearer comparison or conclusion. What are the advantages and drawbacks of the different methods? The original proposes of this research to adopt this method should also be analyzed.
5. In the discussion, the author gives a connection between SDGs and the article’s discussion. However, there is no mention of this concept in the previous article. The article should give more sustainability discussion in the structure of the article.
6. For the conclusion part, there is seldom a connection between the discussion and the conclusion. And for the research in the future, the scholars should consider the difference between the method and the review research to better demonstrate the advice in this research field rather than consider more scholarly data.
7. The discussion about Proximity should have more qualitative discussion. Different approaches in the article should have different Proximity considerations.
8. The review should add more recommendations from different research. It would be better for the reader to understand the background of these research, and it could be more readable.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your responses. All comments have been addressed point by point.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsA satisfactory result concludes recent research on X-minutes city. For urban research, 'chrono-urbanism' is an important concept to explain the geographical phenomenon in urban areas. It could connect the geographical features with people's movement in cities. After the revision from the author, it is a responsible review to debate in this field.
