The Relationship between Emotional Perception and High-Density Built Environment Based on Social Media Data: Evidence from Spatial Analyses in Wuhan

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper tries to offer a compelling analysis of the relationship between citizen emotions and high-density residential buildings in Wuhan, China, using social media and spatial data. Despite its valuable insights, there are several areas of improvement that need to be considered for successful publication.

Firstly, a strong theoretical framework is crucial for any research and is presently lacking in this paper. As this is far more than a simple data analysis, it's important to create robust assumptions, illustrate an investigation roadmap, and comment on the rationale behind the chosen research. This framework should be created to effectively guide the research prior to data analysis.

Secondly, adjustments in the structure of both the abstract and methodology sections are essential. The abstract should be more focussed on the study topic, its significance, the methodology applied, and the key findings. Plan the methodology and data sections strategically, starting with a research framework that would lay the foundation for everything else.

 

Thirdly, a lack of deep analysis is noticeable when discussing the relationships between variables. Rather than a general statement identifying their relations, it would be crucial to discuss the implications of these variables, referencing relevant literature where possible. For example, the statement "positive emotions are positively correlated with OSR, GSR, PFD, and RND" leaves the reader unsure of its plausible implications and how they tie with the overall findings.

Improvements in these areas would bring more clarity to the readers, giving them an impeccable understanding of why this study is important, how it was conducted, and what it implies.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The language of the paper needs to be polished

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for allowing me to review your article.

It shows an interesting problem and also an appropriate way of approaching it, with a quantitative and qualitative paradigm. 

The question is relevant, but it remains to be discussed whether these methods can provide an answer. Also, the methods are adequate for traditional hypotheses, but it is clear that the elements of perception require further theoretical discussion. 

Furthermore, the spatial analysis graphs are not readable at the scale at which they are presented.  Figure 9 requires further explanation, as it is a key background to understanding the phenomenon.

The exploratory conclusions need to be further contextualised and give a sense of the relationship between quantitative and qualitative analyses. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study aims to explore two questions regarding urban space: what is the relationship between quantitative indicators of high-density built environments and people's emotional perception; and, do spatial differentiation characteristics exist in the high-density built environment indicators that affect emotional perception?

Do characteristics exist and can the authors find them are two different questions. I would suggest to reword the second question into can spatial differentiation characteristics be found. If you cannot find does not necessarily mean they do not exist.

Meta Berghauser Pont should be referred to as she (row 153). She is professor at Chalmers, Sweden. At Delft she did her PhD. The book was published by Delft University Press. Correct the wording. She essentially, mentioning that the system was worked out at Delft is probably not necessary.

Row 197. Heading of the Table should be Table 1.

Table 1. column ‘reference’ should also have number of the reference in the list to make it easier to find the appropriate source, still keep the reference to the author and add number in the list.

Abbreviations in the abstract are not understandable. Abstract must be understandable without reading the full paper, means you cannot use the abbreviations explained only in the text. Either explain or write out all of them or if that gets too long, word the most important ones saying so (a la some have positive correlation like for example …).

Representativeness of the Weibo users for the whole population should be addressed. The number of responses is enough but are all age and education classes, genders etc well represented? If data is not fully available, the questions should be at least addressed and possible differences discussed. Are the results representing the whole population of the study area or not so well for same age or income classes for example?

Spatial location of emotions is based on Weibo “geospatial informations”? Please describe more closely what is this geospatial information, what is the spatial resolution etc.

Did mentioning of certain regions in the text affect spatial location of the message?

Row 282. Unfinished sentence.

All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Rows 708-709.  What does this statement mean? In a manuscript submitted for publication.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for the revision and response.