Quantitative Analysis Method of the Organizational Characteristics and Typical Types of Landscape Spatial Sequences Applied with a 3D Point Cloud Model

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The point cloud model is utilized in this paper to quantitatively analyze the characteristics and typical types of landscape spatial sequence. Taking 14 city parks or green spaces as examples, a total of 72 spatial sequences were extracted. A quantitative index system for sequence organization characteristics is established, typical types of sequence organization are summarized, and the characteristic factors and threshold intervals of each sequence organization type are analyzed. This study explores the feasibility and operability of refined spatial sequence research in the digital age, and expands the application scenarios of point cloud data in landscape architecture space research.

 

(1) In 2.3.1 Characteristic index for sequence organizational characteristics, what is the basis for selecting the five indicators(PD, D/H, V, SD and ED) to calculate RV?

(2) In 3.2 Fluctuating spatial sequence, three typical organization types are divided. It is suggested that the corresponding oblique photographic point cloud model should be added to the case analysis of the three types of organizations.

(3) In Fluctuating spatial sequence, Rembrandt Park's sequence RP-SE (U1-U4) was taken as an example for analysis, instead of the complete 10 units mentioned in Table 1. Is RP-SE (U1-U4) a complete tour path or a classic feature node of the campus? Please give a brief explanation.
In Reversal spatial sequence and Moderate spatial sequence also exist in this situation.

(4) In the landscape sequence types in Table 2, what are the basis and criteria for the division of each park case? If it is manually divided, can the manual directly divide the types of cases?

(5) In this paper,AVE_RV, SD_RV and N_c are introduced as indicators to classify landscape space types, and the classification of landscape space is standardized. This task scenario is very suitable for using machine learning to classify landscape space, and the method of introducing machine learning can be considered in the future.

(6) The authors may add more state-of-art computer vision & robot articles in engineering application for the integrity of the manuscript (3D vision technologies for a self-developed structural external crack damage recognition robot; Automation in Construction.).

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The structure of the abstract needs to be revised and supplemented with the statements identified by the authors: a sentence and rationale for the proposed term, classified the typical spatial sequence organisation types, and its further application.

Line 31-31. Line 31-31 sounds wrong. It should be reworded.

A lot of repetitive words. F.e. "Based on the sequence layout characteristics, sequences can be classified as closed circular sequences, tandem sequences, and central sequences". And these types of examples are plentiful.

What is the difference between the term proposed by the authors and the landscape spatial patterns that have been used so far? This question arises because the introduction should have emphasised landscape architecture and distinguished this from natural landscapes. The division depends not only on the spatial arrangement of these areas in the visualisation, but also on various indicators such as vegetation, relief, hydrology, soil-geomorphology and other factors.

What is the justification for your classification of spatial sequence organisation types? How do you intend to use it? Can the landscape types be applied and adapted to any location? If so, can the models be adapted everywhere or do all natural and territorial conditions need to be considered?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some parts of work have to be revised. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. What is the main question addressed by the research?

The main question addressed by the research was whether it is possible to enhance quantitative analysis in landscape interpretation by utilizing a 3D point cloud model to provide a reliable description and interpretation of landscape spaces.

 2. Which parts do you consider original or relevant to the field? What specific gap in this field does the article address?

 The part of the article that stands out is Chapter 3, where the analytical aspect is clearly presented. The research fills a gap concerning the acquisition of reliable data for assessing landscape spaces. The use of 3D laser scanning allows for rapid, multiscale (in addition to length, width, height, and scale, also volume and capacity) and reliable acquisition of spatial data with minimal human resources, saving time and money. The article highlights the utility of laser scanning in landscape research.

 3. What it adds to the topic area compared to other published works material?

The research conducted by the authors points towards standardizing the system for organizing the structure of sequences based on designated path nodes and spatial units. They identified the general spatial organization as paramount based on studies conducted in 14 parks. They emphasized the high efficiency of this system in acquiring spatial data.

 4.       What specific improvements should authors consider regarding the methodology? What further checks should be considered?

In terms of methodology, I believe the approach is well-constructed and based on logical premises.

5. Describe how your conclusions are or are not consistent with the evidence and arguments presented. Please also indicate whether all main questions were addressed and with which specific experiments.

The conclusions are clearly and concisely written. They stem from the conducted research and analytical portion.

 6. Are the references appropriate?

The references appear appropriate.

7. Please provide any additional comments on tables and figures, data quality.

The graphic part is very good. I have no objections to the content and arrangement of the tables.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

-The abstract summarizes the objectives, methodology, and findings but could provide more detail on the implications of the results.

-Concerning the introduction, it provides an adequate overview of the research problem and establishes the study's context. But it need a more comprehensive literature review to outline the current state of knowledge and justify the study.

-It should include a discussion of limitations within the methodology.

-Discussion: there could be more explicit connections to the broader literature, acknowledging how the findings align with or differ from previous studies.

-About conclusion: it is concise but might expand on the practical or theoretical implications.

-Word "sequence" has been repeated multiple times, please modify it.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All the suggestions have been applied. Congrats.