Relationship between Urban Three-Dimensional Spatial Structure and Population Distribution: A Case Study of Kunming’s Main Urban District, China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript (remotesensing-1815222) aims to analyze the relationships between urban three-dimensional spatial structure and working/residential population spatial distribution. Although it is a meaningful research attempt, a "major revision" should be performed before it can be considered further. More detailed comments and suggestions are presented as follows:

(1) The overall structure of the paper needs to be deepened and the significance and innovation of the research needs to be further demonstrated.

(2) The authors should firstly clarify the purpose of the whole study. Why should we explore the relationships between 3-D space and population? This study simply states that the existing studies mostly base on the horizontal dimension. Actually, the work done in this paper on research review is not enough.

(3) The 3-D space filling degree described in this manuscript is almost the same as the spatial/building congestion degree used in the previous related studies (see below for example). Therefore, the authors should not claim that they have developed an entirely new 3-D metric unless the differences between them are worth discussing.

Analyzing the impact of three-dimensional building structure on CO2 emissions based on random forest regression. Energy, 2021, 236: 121502

(4) The selection of the control variables should consider whether there is a causal relationship with 3-D space degree; is there a synergy between these variables? In my opinion, the number of control variables may not be enough.

(5) The classification between the working population and residential population needs more explanations. Firstly, why such time intervals (e.g., from 9:00 to 18:00) were used? Secondly, many residents also occur from 9:00 to 18:00. How to accurately separate the working population and residential population?

(6) When was the "iZone Data" collected? One day, one week or one month? In addition, why is only a single type of population data considered? Have the limitations of LBS data been ignored? Are the conclusions drawn from LBS data alone robust? The authors should make all these points clear.

(7) In the analysis part, the authors draw a simple and direct conclusion, and only makes an incomplete preliminary description. The influence mechanism of 3-D configuration is complex, such as spatial spillover of population, which is very important in the analysis, was not taken into account.

(8) Another concern is that the conclusions of this paper are obvious. The 3-D indicator is proxy of the capacity of buildings of hosting more people. If you have buildings that can host/contain more people, more likely it will be for people to be present.

(9) The conclusion and discussion also need to be further deepened after the follow-up improvement, rather than just some simple data description. The recommendations for urban planning in detail are missing, the current content of which reads general and impractical. For example, what planning actions can be taken at what places, what design should we improve, etc.

(10) The spatial resolution of this analysis (the "block" level) looks a little rough compared to lattice cell level.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript entitle: “Relationship between urban three-dimensional spatial structure and population distribution: A case study of Kunming's Main Urban District, China” overall provides an interesting account of the methods used. However, more could be done. The following are some of the comments which need critical attention for improving the manuscript:

 

 

 

- The authors should clearly indicate the objectives of the manuscript.

 

 

- An extensive literature review should be included to understand what has been researched in the field and help to identify research gaps for your research.

 

 

 

- Lack of justification for choosing the case study.

 

 

- The methodology needs more explanations regarding alternative approaches.

 

 

- The validation process, in the results section, is missing. Therefore, there is no way to effectively identify the veracity of the results.

 

 

 

- The discussion should compare the results achieved in this study with the results achieved by other similar studies.

 

 

- Limitations of this study should be explored, and indicating what could been done to minimize those limitations.

 

 

 

- Please indicate what are the implications of your study for spatial planning.

 

 

- Minor grammar and punctuation errors can be found throughout the text and need to be corrected.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have adequately addressed all my concerns in this revision.

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for the changes that you have made to this manuscript and how well you have responded to the comments/suggestions.