How Does the Spatial Structure of High-Speed Rail Station Areas Evolve? A Case Study of Zhengzhou East Railway Station, China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors did a comprehensive investigation of the selected HSR station's spatial structure, based on accessible databases, using simple statistical methods. The methods are more or less soundly applied. The results are generally clear and supported.

There is an interference between the title and the content of the paper. The title promises scientifically proven, general conclusions, but the content leads the reader to specific conclusions on the selected case. I suggest reconsidering the title.

The applied methodology needs to be revised: the authors stated that impacts of HSR on station areas are unexplored (line 50). Consequently, the investigation methods still need development and verification. However, the authors investigated only one case study, so the broader applicability of the selected methodology on such an area needed to be verified on multiple cases.

Some sentences are hard to read and interpret, e.g. line 53-55. There are some typos, e.g. line 323.

Specific remarks:

Title of 2.1 needs revision.

Line 67. what do the authors mean under "research stations"?

Line 68-70. duplicated sentence (see line 66-67)

Line 85. "1800-2000 metres", instead of "1800-200 metres"

Line 174. POI data from open database: how can the authors prove that the data from different years are representative? Are the authors sure that, e.g. 2010 data reflects that time reality (see later in Table 2.)?

Line 252. Table 1, two columns have the same title (Variable), I suggest distinguishing the titles

Line 268-269. please describe and explain how did the authors select the "h" bandwidth parameter's value

Line 299-300. please revise the defined ranges (core area, influence area, peripheral area) as there is an overlap between 1500-2000 metres; it isn't clear which area you are talking about in further discussions.

4.2.2 and 4.2.3 points, how do the authors' statements about spatial structure characteristics align with the municipality's local development strategy? In other words: how can the authors prove that the area developments are firstly the consequences of the HSR station development and not of decisions of the municipality? Maybe the (parts of the ) changes are not market-oriented and depend on central decisions, as discussed in the 5.6 subchapter.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The article provides valuable knowledge about the real development of the area adjacent to a specific, recently put into operation high-speed line station. The evaluation is based on adequate mathematical processing of the obtained background data from the period including the period before and after the construction of the railway station. Findings about the development of the area can be valuable information for the expected development in the case of similar construction of railway stations.

I have the following comments on the content of the article:

1. Line 65: The text „Spatial scopespatial scope“ is probably wrong.
2. Line 67: I recommend to change the expression „research station“.
3. Lines 70-71: The whole sentence beginning „Many studies“ is given in duplicate, as it is already on lines 67-68.
4. Line 85: The text „1500-200 metres“ is probably wrong.
5. Line 174: The abbreviation „POI“ is not explained. I recommend doing so for a better understanding by the reader.
6. Line 232: I recommend to change the text „The land price costs …“.
7. Table 1: For better orientation in the table, I recommend adding horizontal dividing lines between individual rows.
8. Line 264: I recommend to improve the text „Third, We take …“.
9. Line 269: The form of the reference to "Figure 1" should be without a dot before the number. Also check for other similar occurrences in the text.
10. Line 298: I recommend to improve the text „Therfore, we determine that …“.
11. Figure 1: Resize the images so that their legend is legible.
12. Line 318: I recommend to improve the text „that is, in the third circle, extends …“.
13. Line 320: The abbreviation „sub-CBD is not explained. I recommend doing so for a better understanding by the reader.
14. Line 323: There is strange character between „Table“ and „2“.
15. Line 465: The position of the Table 4 is too far from the reference to this table in the text.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper defines the spatial scope of the Zhengzhou East railway station area and explores the characteristics, influencing factors of its spatial structure from the perspective of industry.

The topic is interesting, and the paper is comprehensive and well written. The paper is very well documented, and bibliographic references are comprehensive. The results seem coherent and described with sufficient clarity. The main contributions of the paper are clearly highlighted: it describes “three steps” to define the spatial scope of the high-speed rail (HSR) station area; studies the spatial structure evolution of overall industry and sub-industries in HSR station areas. Based on the results obtained generic and fundamental conclusions are drawn.

Consequently, the paper may be recommended for publication in Applied Sciences. But, before publication, I recommend reducing some sections of the paper which are very extensive, respectively: Section 2. Research background and Section 6. Conclusion. In my opinion, Section 2 could be introduced in the introduction. Also, the abstract should also be revised. It is very extensive but does not present the contribution of the paper.

The text and English language in the paper must checked, edited, and corrected.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you for sending your paper to the journal Applied Sciences. Your paper is quite interesting and in the scope of the journal. I want to propose to you some improvements to the current version of your paper:

1. Try to avoid so-called chain citation, for example, [1,2] or [10-14]. Each of the references deserves a two to three sentence why are important for your research.
2. After the title of the chapter, you need to have a paragraph and then a subtitle. It cannot be 2. and followed by 2.1.
3. Line 85 check distance
4. Line 16a and future – between two cities on railway line add –
5. You only expound on different methods, for example: kernel density, Poisson regression, … You need to explain why you pick up those methods. What are the advantages and disadvantages of using these methods?
6. Add a block diagram of your research steps.
7. Please check table 1. Something is wrong.
8. Figure 1 is not precise, and it also needs to be connected to the text. From which period is kernel density? How to connect one-year kernel density with a two-time slot of land use?
9. In all tables, numbers need to be aligned to the right. In that way, it is easier to compare the results.
10. Also, check the technical part of tables 2 and 3. For example, bold text.
11. Which method of regression have you used?
12. In table 4, R² is very low. Need to be explained.
13. Why you used the following: “Where *, **, *** express significance at 10%, 5%, 1%”?
14. For tables 5 and 6, see 12 and 13.
15. In conclusion, each of (1), (2), and (3) put in separate rows.

Regards,

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank the authors for the revised version.

Title: I suggested making the title more specific. This current version is more general. I don't advise this version; the previous version was more acceptable.

4.2.2 and 4.2.3 points: I accept the reasoning of the authors. Moreover, I suggest including this explanation in the Conclusions.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you for sending your new version of paper to the journal Applied Sciences. Your paper is quite interesting and in the scope of the journal. I want to propose to you some improvements to the current version of your paper:

1. Try to avoid so-called chain citation, for example, [1,2] or [10-14]. Each of the references deserves a two to three sentence why are important for your research.

Response: As reviewer suggest that we have tried to avoid chain citation and adjusted some sentences.

From the perspective of the urban interior, the “catalyst effect” [1] and “[2] agglomeration and diffusion effect” of HSR stations can improve the transportation infrastructure in cities.

The impact of HSR on urban space stems from changes in accessibility [5,6]. In recent years, most studies have focused on the impact of HSR on accessibility [7], spatial equity  [8,9], travel patterns, urban sectoral employment[10], commuting behaviour[11], spatial development[12]

1. On some places you have made the change on some not. Please Balance all part of the paper.

1. After the title of the chapter, you need to have a paragraph and then a subtitle. It cannot be 2. and followed by 2.1.

Response: As reviewer suggest that we have added some content.

 As an important transportation hub, HSR station can improve the accessibility of the city with its convenient transportation connection, gather large-scale population, in-formation and diversified industries, become an important "catalyst element" of the city, and lead to the spatial agglomeration of population and socio-economic activities. Domestic and foreign research on station area focuses on station area definition, circle structure analysis, land use, station area development mechanism. Please see page 2 in the revised manuscript.

1. You did not follow this comment on whole paper.

1. Line 85 check distance

Response: As reviewer suggest that we have revised “1500-2000 metres”. Please see page 2 in the revised manuscript.

1.  

1. Line 16a and future – between two cities on railway line add –

Response: I’m sorry I didn’t find “Line 16a and future – between two cities on railway line add” in the article.

1. Line 161 and future – between two cities on railway line add – (minus)

1. You only expound on different methods, for example: kernel density, Poisson

regression, … You need to explain why you pick up those methods. What are the advantages and disadvantages of using these methods?

Response: As reviewer suggest that we have added the reasons for using these methods.

Kernel density analysis is a spatial analysis method based on the distribution characteristics of the research object. The sample points in the research area are given different weights through the kernel density function, showing a smooth density map to reveal the regional density attribute. It has obvious advantages in the quantitative analysis of the spatial agglomeration characteristics of points in the whole region. Please see page 5 in the revised manuscript.

Enterprises can be regarded as a series of points in continuous space, and their location selection is an optimization process in discrete space. Therefore, this paper uses the spatial point model method to measure the characteristics of industrial agglomeration in continuous space, and quantitatively determines the impact of various factors in different periods on the site industrial spatial structure through Poisson regression. Please see page 5 in the revised manuscript.

1. You have explain the term. What are the advantages and disadvantages of using these methods?

1. Add a block diagram of your research steps.

Response: This paper studies the spatial structure development characteristics and influencing factors of the overall and sub industries in the HSR station area. We built a block diagram of your research steps. However, we found that this will duplicate the title of this article, so we didn’t put this figure in the article for the time being.

1.  

1. Please check table 1. Something is wrong.

Response: As reviewer suggest that we have checked and revised the table 1. Please see pages 6-7 in the revised manuscript.

1. Still table is unreadable. You choose of format is not good.

1. Figure 1 is not precise, and it also needs to be connected to the text. From which period is kernel density? How to connect one-year kernel density with a two-time slot of land use?

Response: As reviewer suggest that we have check and revised

Kernel density is 2019. We have added a period to make the picture clearer

1.  

1. In all tables, numbers need to be aligned to the right. In that way, it is easier to compare the results.

Response: As reviewer suggest that we have aligned numbers. Please see the revised manuscript.

1. See table 2!

1. Also, check the technical part of tables 2 and 3. For example, bold text.

Response: As reviewer suggest that we have check the technical part of tables 2 and 3. Please see pages 9-7 the revised manuscript.

1.  

1. Which method of regression have you used?

Response: I have used the following regression model, for example, Time trend (Slope), the Generalized Additive Model (GAM) and so on. You can see it in my published articles.

Wang, X., Tian,⁠ G., Yang, D*., Zhang, W*., Lu, D., Liu, Z. Responses of PM⁠2.5 pollution to urbanization in China. Energy Policy, 2018, 123,602-610.

1. Add this point to the text.

1. In table 4, R² is very low. Need to be explained.

Response: R² values is relatively low. It is meaningful values in this research, because the direction and significance of the variables are referential. Please see page 12 the revised manuscript.

1. Recheck added sentences.

1. Why you used the following: “Where *, **, *** express significance at 10%, 5%, 1%”?

Response: The significance level is the probability that the estimated population parameters may make mistakes when they fall within a certain interval. Its value range is 1%, 5% and 10%, which is considered to be meaningful.

1. I know what significance level is. It is strange that for some model you use different significance level for different variables.

1. For tables 5 and 6, see 12 and 13.

Response: As reviewer suggest that we have explained the reason.

1.  

1. In conclusion, each of (1), (2), and (3) put in separate rows.

Response: As reviewer suggest that we have adjusted the rows. Please see page 17 the revised manuscript.

1.  

Finally, the authors appreciate the insightful and constructive comments of anonymous reviewers.

1. I am glad that can help you to publish your research results.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you for sending me a new version of your paper.

Still, there is some fine-tuning of your current version of the paper.

Regards,