Classification and Spatial Differentiation of Subdistrict Units for Sustainable Urban Renewal in Megacities: A Case Study of Chengdu

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

ENGLISH EDITING SERVICE IS NEEDED.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I think this manuscript is good. I have only some minor comments.

1. Secondary indicators need to be streamlined, as too many variables are highly correlated.

2. Insufficient discussion on the results of data analysis and insufficient comparison with the data.

3. Insufficient discussion on research significance.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

I would like to take this opportunity to express my sincere gratitude for your time and efforts in reviewing this article. We have polished the English expression of this manuscript, checked the tense and singular/plural forms, corrected inappropriate spelling and expression, and ensured compliance with the relevant formatting requirements in the LAND journal template. Based on your proposal, we have made the following adjustments to the content of the manuscript.

(1) In section 2.2, a brief general description of megacities was added at the beginning. In addition, we have defined the scope of literature sources that formed the Table 1. Based on the discussion and integration of review indicators, this article has formed a classification indicator system as shown in the rightmost column of Table 1 (or in Figure 4), thereby minimizing the complex correlation between indicators caused by endogeneity. 

(2) Figure 7 has been added to show the original values and spatial distribution of relevant attributes, in order to better demonstrate the data analysis foundation used in this article. 

(3) In the latter half of sections 4.1 and 4.2, discussions were added on the topics of public participatory governance in megacities and fairness in semi-urbanized areas. Based on the conclusion of this article, the idea of conducting in-depth research was proposed, including scenario construction for public participation, classification discussion, and comparative study of ladder models, etc. 

(4) Section 4.3 has been added to emphasize the research significance and prospects. This includes how subdistrict classification responds to the government's authority in urban renewal to enhance the sustainability of renewal actions, the possibility of optimizing sustainability evaluation methods, and expanding research scope to optimize classification methods through big data and deep learning. 

Thank you again for your review and guidance! We sincerely hope that the above changes can respond to your suggestions.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study classifies grassroots governance units into nine types based on urban renewal needs, emphasizing public participatory governance in high-density central areas, suburban attention in semi-urbanized zones, and cautious redevelopment.

 

The Research paper provides respectable findings and is well-written, but before it is accepted, it needs to be strengthened in the following ways:

 

The introduction could be expanded, and more related research sources should be cited.

The author may use the following sources: DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13102448, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-443-15847-6.00010-0

The author should include the methodology flow chart in the methodology section.

The author should talk about "In high-density central areas, semi-urbanized zones, and areas requiring careful rebuilding, how successfully does the study's classification of grassroots governance units into nine types fulfil the different urban renewal needs?

The author should contribute to the broader framework of grassroots governance for urban revitalization by emphasizing public participatory governance in high-density central regions and suburban attention in semi-urbanized zones.

The author should discuss potential applications, extensions, or further research directions based on its findings.

The author should define all abbreviations before using them even if they are well known.

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The paper requires careful polishing of its English presentation, addressing grammatical issues,  and addressing typos and poorly written sentences.  

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

I would like to take this opportunity to express my sincere gratitude for your time and efforts in reviewing this article. We have polished the English expression of this manuscript, checked the tense and singular/plural forms, corrected inappropriate spelling and expression, and ensured compliance with the relevant formatting requirements in the LAND journal template. Based on your proposal, we have made the following adjustments to the content of the manuscript.

In the introduction section:

(1) Firstly, the description of the concept ‘sustainable urban renewal’ was expanded, and the definition used in this article was clarified. A consistent description with 2.2 was adopted to connect the background and methodology.

(2) In the third paragraph, the abbreviations of evaluation methods such as AHP, MAVT, TOPSIS that first appeared were explained, and the reference scale was expanded to support the application of these methods in sustainable research.

In the methodology section:

(1) At the beginning, the expression of the flowchart was optimized to enhance its correspondence with the structure of this chapter.

In the discussion and conclusion section:

(1) Thank you for providing the reference suggestions, which are consistent with the conclusion of this article on the renewal characteristics of the central area of big cities. They have been included in the bibliography of discussion. 

(2) In the latter half of sections 4.1 and 4.2, discussions were added on the topics of public participatory governance in megacities and fairness in semi-urbanized areas. Based on the conclusion of this article, the idea of conducting in-depth research was proposed, including scenario construction for public participation, classification discussion, and comparative study of ladder models, etc. 

(3) Section 4.3 has been added to emphasize the research significance and prospects. This includes how subdistrict classification responds to the government's authority in urban renewal to enhance the sustainability of renewal actions, the possibility of optimizing sustainability evaluation methods, and expanding research scope to optimize classification methods through big data and deep learning. 

Thank you again for your review and guidance! We sincerely hope that the above changes can respond to your suggestions.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors

The article is interesting and valuable. It deals with an important and current topic. The article presents a comprehensive and systematic characteristic of material and methods used in the extensive research. Results are presented in a clear manner.

 I would like to formulate some general comments:

1.      The importance of the work would be enhanced by the formulation of a research problem and specific research objectives and hypotheses.

2.      In my opinion, the theoretical underpinning of the concept of "sustainable urban renewal" needs strengthening. At the same time, greater clarity in the text would be ensured if the theoretical part of the article provided a comprehensive account of the theoretical underpinnings of the work. In the current version, important theoretical elements can be found in the methodological part of the paper, e.g. section 2.2.

3.      In the methodological part of the study, it is important to indicate in detail the scope of the literature review carried out (temporal, spatial, thematic), the results of which are presented in Table 1. 

4.      I would add a short, general description of the city to the methodological part.

5.      Please revise the content of section 2.3. and make the necessary corrections, including proposing an appropriate title for Table 2 and ensuring the clarity of the content presented.

Other remarks:

1.      I would consider generalising the title, e.g. ”Classification and Spatial Differentiation of Subdistrict Units in the process of shaping Sustainable Urban Renewal in Mega Cities – A case study of Chengdu, China”.

2.      Please ensure that all abbreviations used in the text are expanded and explained.

3.      Please do not start subsections with figures.

4.      In the title of figure 2 I would include a reference to parts "a" and "b".

5.      Please verify the description of table 3.

Thank you.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

I would like to take this opportunity to express my sincere gratitude for your time and efforts in reviewing this article. We have polished the English expression of this manuscript, checked the tense and singular/plural forms, corrected inappropriate spelling and expression, and ensured compliance with the relevant formatting requirements in the LAND journal template. Based on your proposal, we have made the following adjustments to the content of the manuscript.

In the introduction section:

(1) Firstly, the description of the concept ‘sustainable urban renewal’ was expanded, and the definition used in this article was clarified. A consistent description with 2.2 was adopted to connect the background and methodology.

(2) In the third paragraph, the abbreviations of evaluation methods such as AHP, MAVT, TOPSIS that first appeared were explained, and the reference scale was expanded to support the application of these methods in sustainable research.

(3) In the last paragraph, the description of the research ideas and objectives was enhanced, so as to better align the research results and discussion with the beginning.

In the methodology section:

(1) At the beginning, the expression of the flowchart was optimized to enhance its correspondence with the structure of this chapter.

(2) In section 2.2, a brief general description of megacities was added at the beginning. We have also defined the scope of literature sources that formed the Table 1.

As for other remarks, we have decided to keep the original title in order to better control its length while expressing its meaning clearly. Besides, the descriptions and contents of Tables 2 and 3 have been rechecked to ensure their accuracy. 

Thank you again for your review and guidance! We sincerely hope that the above changes can respond to your suggestions.