Geo-Semiotic Analysis of Shared Streets in Urban Historical Districts: The Case of Jiefangbei, Chongqing, China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsSummary
The study focuses on the design and use of shared streets in the heavily built-up area of the Jiefangbei Business District of Chongqing, a major city in south-western China. The city has been rapidly developed as a regional centre. Using photo content analysis, video observation, and questionnaire surveys of pedestrians using the area, the study analyses the visual semiotics, place semiotics, and users’ interaction order of the area. It focuses particularly on the interaction of pedestrians and the streets and the traffic they contain.
Assessment
The paper addresses an important aspect of city planning, the interaction of people, place and traffic and how these may be complementary. The study is comprehensive in its coverage, employing photography, videos and questionnaire surveys of pedestrians.
The Jiefangbei Business District according to Google Earth is a major high-rise commercial area, not unlike the centre of New York, but this context is not explained in the paper other than the statement “very high density of commercial facilities and people” in Line 201-2. Yet this context is vital in understanding the study.
The study covered visual and place semiotics as well as user’s interaction and I expected an assessment by pedestrians of the purpose and adequacy of the signs and street furniture in the area. However, the user’s interaction focused solely on their interaction with the streets and traffic.
Non-local tourists accounted for 46.1%, nearby residents 8.4%, local tourists 25.1%, and nearby staff 20.4% (Lines 370-1). It seems odd that tourists accounted for over 70% of the sample. This would not be representative of the local population. Were the tourists more willing to participate than the locals? Tourists would be far less familiar with the layout of the area as would local residents. To what extent does this bias to tourists affect the results?
Section 6 combines discussion and conclusions and provides a reasonable summary of its findings. Importantly it draws out lessons for application by planners in integrating traffic and pedestrian management but apart from the statement “adding greenery and leisure facilities” its recommendations are rather general and non-specific.
The questionnaire shown in an appendix is brief and to the point although I wondered whether it should have asked more qualitative questions such as their opinion about the street furniture and signs.
The method followed by the study is logical and sound and the study should be reproducible by others using a similar approach to data gathering. Self-citation is not an issue, and the references are mostly post-2000.
Specific comments
A map of China showing the location of Chongqing would be useful. Also, within a map of Chongqing, show the location of the Jiefangbei Business District.
Line 397 “more than people (52.5%)” Word missing?
Line 422 “(an of Figure 7)” a of Figure 7?
Line 609 Was cycling considered as an option? Or powered scooters or motor cycles?
Author Response
1ST REVIEWER：
The study focuses on the design and use of shared streets in the heavily built-up area of the Jiefangbei Business District of Chongqing, a major city in south-western China. The city has been rapidly developed as a regional centre. Using photo content analysis, video observation, and questionnaire surveys of pedestrians using the area, the study analyses the visual semiotics, place semiotics, and users’ interaction order of the area. It focuses particularly on the interaction of pedestrians and the streets and the traffic they contain.
The paper addresses an important aspect of city planning, the interaction of people, place and traffic and how these may be complementary. The study is comprehensive in its coverage, employing photography, videos and questionnaire surveys of pedestrians.
Comment 1: The Jiefangbei Business District according to Google Earth is a major high-rise commercial area, not unlike the centre of New York, but this context is not explained in the paper other than the statement “very high density of commercial facilities and people” in Line 201-2. Yet this context is vital in understanding the study.
Answer 1: We Added some context in the Introduction (Lines 45-52). I also added more context in the 4.1 case study section (Line 232-240; Line 244-255)
Comment 2: The study covered visual and place semiotics as well as user interaction, and I expected an assessment by pedestrians of the purpose and adequacy of the signs and street furniture in the area. However, the user’s interaction focused solely on their interaction with the streets and traffic.
Answer 2: We explained this in 318-322. Additionally, in the theory section (154-165), I explained that ‘space arrangement’ is in itself a significant semiotic element.
Comment 3: Non-local tourists accounted for 46.1%, nearby residents 8.4%, local tourists 25.1%, and nearby staff 20.4% (Lines 370-1). It seems odd that tourists accounted for over 70% of the sample. This would not be representative of the local population. Were the tourists more willing to participate than the locals? Tourists would be far less familiar with the layout of the area as would local residents. To what extent does this bias to tourists affect the results?
Answer 3: Lines 336-352 explained details about sampling and our way to reduce bias. Lines 452-460 explained why the reasons for being disproportionate. Lines 496-499 and 556-558 in Result explained the bias coming from disproportionate sampling. In the discussion session, 688-691 mentioned this as one of the limitations.
Comment 4: Section 6 combines discussion and conclusions and provides a reasonable summary of its findings. Importantly it draws out lessons for application by planners in integrating traffic and pedestrian management but apart from the statement “adding greenery and leisure facilities” its recommendations are rather general and non-specific.
Answer 4: We Added more suggestions in Discussion (Line 674-687)
Comment 5: The questionnaire shown in an appendix is brief and to the point although I wondered whether it should have asked more qualitative questions such as their opinion about the street furniture and signs.
Answer 5: We have added some qualitative analyses and Tables 1 and 3. However, due to time constraints, we are unable to conduct qualitative investigations thoroughly.
Comment 6: The method followed by the study is logical and sound and the study should be reproducible by others using a similar approach to data gathering. Self-citation is not an issue, and the references are mostly post-2000.
Answer 6: We added some more necessary references.
Specific comments:
A map of China showing the location of Chongqing would be useful. Also, within a map of Chongqing, show the location of the Jiefangbei Business District.
Answer: Please see Page 6
Line 397 “more than people (52.5%)” Word missing?
Answer: Refined
Line 422 “(an of Figure 7)” a of Figure 7?
Answer: Refined
Line 609 Was cycling considered as an option? Or powered scooters or motor cycles?
Answer: Lines 345-347 explained
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThanks for the invitation to review the manuscript (land-3120806, Geo-semiotic Analysis of Shared Streets in Urban Historical Districts: The Case of Jiefangbei, Chongqing, China). My review comments are as follows.
1.The abstract needs to be focused and refined, it is the eye of the article. It should contain the background of the study, methodology, results, and relevance; the current abstract does not look like an academic one.
2. Keywords should be added to emphasize the key points of the article, which are too few in the current version.
3. Introduction section. This section provides an introduction to the background of Shared Streets, but does not detail the specific purpose and research questions of the study. It is recommended that the authors clarify the purpose and problem of the study so that readers can better understand the direction and importance of the study.
4.This research topic is fresh and interesting, but the article is clearly lacking in its introduction of geosemiotics in the theoretical framework section, but does not adequately explain its direct connection to shared streets research. The authors would like to provide a more detailed explanation of how geosemiotics applies to the analysis of shared streets.
5. The study may have failed to adequately describe the process of sample selection and the representativeness of the sample. In particular, the results of the questionnaire mentioned in the appendix lacked a detailed description of the criteria for participant selection.
6. Despite the large amount of data provided in the results section, the interpretation and analysis of the results may not go far enough. Particularly in the discussion of the results of the cross-analysis, further explanations may be needed to understand the relationships between the different variables.
7. Although the theory of geosemiotics is introduced, details of specific applications may be lacking when linking the theory to practical examples of shared streets.
8. While the study emphasizes the importance of multidisciplinary collaboration, it may not detail how different disciplines are specifically involved in the design and management of shared streets.
9. Studies may not adequately consider the long-term effects of shared street design, such as possible changes in user behavior and street function over time.
10. The results section provides a wealth of data, but some of the results are presented in a simplistic manner, lacking in-depth data analysis and interpretation. It is recommended that the authors use more graphs and statistical analysis to present the results more clearly.
11. The study may not have adequately considered the differences in users' perceptions of shared streets across cultures, which has important implications for the replication of design practices in other parts of the world.
12. The discussion section provides some analysis of the results, but does not fully consider the needs and experiences of different user groups. It is recommended that the authors further discuss the significance of the findings for different user groups in the conclusion.
13. The references section provides a solid foundation for the research, but authors are advised to check the currency and relevance of the citations to ensure that all citations are up-to-date and highly relevant to the research topic. In addition the references in this paper are inadequate.
I would like to review the revised version of this article, as it is more interesting. The article provides an in-depth study of shared streets in the Jiefangbei business district, but needs more detail and in-depth analysis in some areas. It is recommended that the authors provide more methodological details, delve into the perspectives of different user groups, provide more data analysis and interpretation of the results, and ensure that references are updated and relevant in the revised manuscript. In addition, providing complete information on the questionnaire will help improve the quality and credibility of the article.
Author Response
2nd REVIEWER:
Thank you to the esteemed editor for inviting me to review this interesting article of yours. The article provides an in-depth study of shared streets in the Jiefangbei business district, but it needs further deepening and clarification in some aspects. I have carefully reviewed this article and my specific recommendations are as follows.
Major issues：
Comment 1: The authors should strengthen the explanation of the theoretical framework, clarify the data analysis methodology, deepen the discussion of the results, and consider the needs of different user groups in the revised manuscript.
Answer 1: We have rewritten the theoretical framework, methodology, and the result.
Comment 2: The introduction section provides a brief overview of the history and global application of shared streets, but does not adequately explain the specific reasons why the Jiefangbei business district was chosen as a case study. It is recommended that the authors provide more detailed background information explaining the historical, cultural, and geographic uniqueness of the Jiefangbei business district, as well as its representativeness and significance to shared streets research.
Answer 2: We added some context in the Introduction (Line 45-52). I also added more context in the Case Study section (Line 232-240ï¼›244-255; 265-272)
Comment 3: Although geosemiotics theory has been introduced, it may not have fully demonstrated its unique perspective and depth in analyzing shared streets, and the specific application of the theory in relation to practice may not be clear enough.
Answer 3: We added more explanation of theories in 154-165,177-181
Comment 4: The study may lack adequate justification for sample selection and sample size rationalization, which may affect the representativeness and extrapolation of results. The authors need to explain and justify these possible effects.
Answer 4: Lines 336-352 explained details about sampling and our way to reduce bias. Lines 452-460 explained why the reasons for being disproportionate. Lines 496-499, and 556-558 in the result explained the bias coming from disproportionate sampling. In the discussion session, 688-691 mentioned this as one of the limitations.
Comment 5: While the data collection methods are described, the analytical methods may not be sufficiently transparent, especially the process of how qualitative data are translated into research findings.
Answer 5: In terms of quantitative ones, we explained ‘using SPSS’ in lines 446 and 447.
For qualitative answers, two tables were presented for content analysis (page12 and 15)
Specific issues：
- Lines 7-24. The content of the abstract needs to be concise, with a big need to highlight the context of the study, the methodology, the results, and the relevance of the reality.
Answer: We refined the abstract
- Lines 52-123 . The literature review section covers the concept and practice of shared streets, but seems to lack a critical analysis of the existing literature. It is recommended that the authors include a critical discussion of existing research methods and findings in the review, pointing out gaps in the research and the unique contributions of this paper.
Answer: The critical review and gaps in the research on shared streets are primarily discussed in paragraphs 4, 5, and 6 of the literature review. Additional unique contributions are also discussed in the subsequent theoretical framework chapter (pages 186-192). There is more content regarding contributions in the Discussion and Conclusion sections as well.
- Lines 245-277. The methodology section describes the research methodology in detail, but it does not adequately describe how the data were analyzed.
Answer: In terms of quantitative ones, we explained ‘using SPSS’ in lines 446 and 447.
For qualitative answers, two tables were presented for content analysis (page12 and 15)
In addition, some filtering process for photos was added in lines 391-394
- The authors need to describe the process of analyzing the data, including how the data were extracted and coded from the photographs, videos, and questionnaires, and what statistical tools or software were used.
Answer: In terms of quantitative ones, we explained ‘using SPSS’ in lines 446 and 447.
For qualitative answers, two tables were presented for content analysis (page12 and 15)
In addition, some filtering process for photos was added in lines 391-394
- The results section provides a wealth of visual and interaction data, but appears to be inadequate in explaining how these data relate to the research questions and hypotheses.
Answer: The research question was proposed in lines 52-54, and some summaries were added in the results sections 516-520 and 578-584. Most importantly, the conclusions corresponding to the research question have been reorganized in the conclusion section 622-649.
- It is recommended that the authors explain in more detail in the discussion section how these semiotic elements affect the user experience of shared streets and compare them with findings in the existing literature.
Answer: Questions 2 and 5 have responded to this question.
- The list of references provides a solid foundation for the research, but the number is clearly insufficient.
Answer: We added some more necessary references.
- Authors are advised to ensure that all citations are up-to-date and highly relevant to the research topic. It is also recommended to check for consistency in citation formatting.
Answer: We checked the references.
- The quality of the pictures needs to be improved.
Answer: We improved the resolution of Figures 3 and 5.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you to the esteemed editor for inviting me to review this interesting article of yours. The article provides an in-depth study of shared streets in the Jiefangbei business district, but it needs further deepening and clarification in some aspects. I have carefully reviewed this article and my specific recommendations are as follows.
Major issues：
1. The authors should strengthen the explanation of the theoretical framework, clarify the data analysis methodology, deepen the discussion of the results, and consider the needs of different user groups in the revised manuscript.
2. The introduction section provides a brief overview of the history and global application of shared streets, but does not adequately explain the specific reasons why the Jiefangbei business district was chosen as a case study. It is recommended that the authors provide more detailed background information explaining the historical, cultural, and geographic uniqueness of the Jiefangbei business district, as well as its representativeness and significance to shared streets research.
3. Although geosemiotics theory has been introduced, it may not have fully demonstrated its unique perspective and depth in analyzing shared streets, and the specific application of the theory in relation to practice may not be clear enough.
4. The study may lack adequate justification for sample selection and sample size rationalization, which may affect the representativeness and extrapolation of results. The authors need to explain and justify these possible effects.
5. While the data collection methods are described, the analytical methods may not be sufficiently transparent, especially the process of how qualitative data are translated into research findings.
Specific issues：
1. Lines 7-24. The content of the abstract needs to be concise, with a big need to highlight the context of the study, the methodology, the results, and the relevance of the reality.
2. Lines 52-123 . The literature review section covers the concept and practice of shared streets, but seems to lack a critical analysis of the existing literature. It is recommended that the authors include a critical discussion of existing research methods and findings in the review, pointing out gaps in the research and the unique contributions of this paper.
3. Lines 245-277. The methodology section describes the research methodology in detail, but there is insufficient description of how the data were analyzed.
4. The authors need to describe the process of analyzing the data, including how the data were extracted and coded from the photographs, videos, and questionnaires, and what statistical tools or software were used.
5. The results section provides a wealth of visual and interaction data, but appears to be inadequate in explaining how these data relate to the research questions and hypotheses.
6. It is recommended that the authors explain in more detail in the discussion section how these semiotic elements affect the user experience of shared streets and compare them with findings in the existing literature.
7. The list of references provides a solid foundation for the research, but the number is clearly insufficient.
8. Authors are advised to ensure that all citations are up-to-date and highly relevant to the research topic. It is also recommended to check for consistency in citation formatting.
9. The quality of the pictures needs to be improved.
Author Response
3rd REVIEWER:
Thanks for the invitation to review the manuscript (land-3120806, Geo-semiotic Analysis of Shared Streets in Urban Historical Districts: The Case of Jiefangbei, Chongqing, China). My review comments are as follows.
Comment 1: The abstract needs to be focused and refined, it is the eye of the article. It should contain the background of the study, methodology, results, and relevance; the current abstract does not look like an academic one.
Answer 1: We refined the abstract.
Comment 2: Keywords should be added to emphasize the key points of the article, which are too few in the current version.
Answer 2: We added keywords.
Comment 3: Introduction section. This section provides an introduction to the background of Shared Streets, but does not detail the specific purpose and research questions of the study. It is recommended that the authors clarify the purpose and problem of the study so that readers can better understand the direction and importance of the study.
Answer 3: The research question was proposed in lines 52-54.
Comment 4: This research topic is fresh and interesting, but the article is clearly lacking in its introduction of geosemiotics in the theoretical framework section, but does not adequately explain its direct connection to shared streets research. The authors would like to provide a more detailed explanation of how geosemiotics applies to the analysis of shared streets.
Answer 4: We added more explanation of theories in Lines 154-165 and 177-181.
Comment 5: The study may have failed to adequately describe the process of sample selection and the representativeness of the sample. In particular, the results of the questionnaire mentioned in the appendix lacked a detailed description of the criteria for participant selection.
Answer 5: Lines 336-352 explained details about sampling and our way to reduce bias. Lines 452-460 explained why the reasons for being disproportionate. Lines 496-499, and 556-558 in the result explained the bias coming from disproportionate sampling. In the discussion session, 688-691 mentioned this as one of the limitations.
Comment 6: Despite the large amount of data provided in the results section, the interpretation and analysis of the results may not go far enough. Particularly in the discussion of the results of the cross-analysis, further explanations may be needed to understand the relationships between the different variables.
Answer 6: We have added some necessary cross-analysis (Line 489-501). We also added some summaries in the results sections 516-520 and 578-584. Most importantly, the conclusions corresponding to the research question have been reorganized in the conclusion section 622-649.
Comment 7: Although the theory of geosemiotics is introduced, details of specific applications may be lacking when linking the theory to practical examples of shared streets.
Answer 7: We added more explanations of theories in 154-165 and 177-181.
Comment 8: While the study emphasizes the importance of multidisciplinary collaboration, it may not detail how different disciplines are specifically involved in the design and management of shared streets.
Answer 8: We indicated in lines 363-365. However, we decided not to address the multidisciplinary collaboration in writing.
Comment 9: Studies may not adequately consider the long-term effects of shared street design, such as possible changes in user behavior and street function over time.
Answer 9: We added in limitation and future research in line 696-699.
Comment 10: The results section provides a wealth of data, but some of the results are presented in a simplistic manner, lacking in-depth data analysis and interpretation. It is recommended that the authors use more graphs and statistical analysis to present the results more clearly.
Answer 10: We added Tables 1, 2, and 3 on pages 12, 13, and 15. Reorganized tables in Appendix 2.
Comment 11: The study may not have adequately considered the differences in users' perceptions of shared streets across cultures, which has important implications for the replication of design practices in other parts of the world.
Answer 11: We added as a limitation and future research in 701-703.
Comment 12: The discussion section provides some analysis of the results, but does not fully consider the needs and experiences of different user groups. It is recommended that the authors further discuss the significance of the findings for different user groups in the conclusion.
Answer 12: We have added some necessary cross-analysis (Line 489-501). We also added some summaries in the results sections 516-520 and 578-584. Most importantly, the conclusions corresponding to the research question have been reorganized in the conclusion section 622-649.
Comment 13: The references section provides a solid foundation for the research, but authors are advised to check the currency and relevance of the citations to ensure that all citations are up-to-date and highly relevant to the research topic. In addition the references in this paper are inadequate.
Answer 13: We checked the references and added more necessary references.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors addressed my concerns in the revised version, and I recommend publishing this version.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors made an effort in revising from the revised version, they responded one by one and addressed my concerns. I agree to publish this version.
