Advanced Integration of Urban Street Greenery and Pedestrian Flow: A Multidimensional Analysis in Chengdu’s Central Urban District

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1, The methodology of this study lacks innovation. Compared with traditional methods, this study only introduces Baidu population heat map data and combines it with green space for spatial autocorrelation analysis, which is unconvincing.

2. The research methodology needs to be compared with traditional methods to strengthen the argument.

3. The structure of the paper needs to be reorganised to improve the readability of the paper. A separate chapter on experimental data and methods is recommended.

4. Check the quality of the images in the paper as they are blurry. Make sure there is no compression or other processing affecting their sharpness.

5. Improve the comparison between NDVI and GVI in Section 3.3. Consider annotating specific areas for comparison or employing quantitative analysis techniques.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The presentation of the paper still needs to be improved.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We have attached the revised manuscript, and the modified parts are highlighted in blue. We have carefully scrutinized it to make the corresponding revisions, including for errors in spelling, mathematical notation, and grammar. Thank you again for reviewing our manuscript.

Please see the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper employing spatial auto-correlation techniques to investigate the interplay between street greenery and pedestrian flow over time and space, and the findings reveal a prevalent negative spatial auto-correlation between street greenery and pedestrian flow within the area, underscored by temporal disparities in greenery demands across various urban functions during weekdays versus weekends. This paper is well organized, while, I still have some concerns listed as follows:

 

1. The resolution of figures are relatively low, Figure 1 is hard to read, as well as Figure 2, 3, 4... Thus, authors should improve the quality of the all figures of the whole paper.

 

2. The related works are not enough to cover the current research, I suggest to add a new section to introduce the related works.

 

3. This paper lacks a detailed description of multi-source urban data, including open-source road networks, remote sensing images, street view data, and Baidu heatmap. Authors should give a detailed description of these datasets.

 

4. I think authors should give a explanation on the prevalent negative spatial auto-correlation between street greenery and pedestrian flow within the area. The discussion part is not that clear.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

This paper is well written, whereas, I think authors should check this the language again carafully.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We appreciate the time and effort that you and the reviewers dedicated to providing feedback on our manuscript and are grateful for your insightful comments and suggested improvements to our paper. 

Please refer to the attached file below for a point-by-point response to the reviewers' comments and concerns.

We have attached the revised manuscript, and the modified parts are highlighted in blue. We have carefully scrutinized it to make the corresponding revisions, including for errors in spelling, mathematical notation, and grammar. Thank you again for reviewing our manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review- Advanced Integration of Urban Street Greenery and Pedestrian Flow

The study aims to analyze the relationship between urban street greenery and pedestrian flow using an array of data sources, including street images, satellite images, and mobile data. The methodologies employed encompass semantic segmentation technology, image analysis techniques, spatial statistics, and space syntax analysis. The research process and methodologies are systematic, and the results are valid, supporting publication in ISPRS IJGI.

However, the following corrections are necessary:

1. All figures from Figure 1 to Figure 6 need to be revised to 300 dpi to meet the journal's resolution requirements.
2. In Table 1, the same content is repeated in the bottom six lines and should be deleted.
3. In the references, entry number 33 is missing the publication year, and entry 43 contains notation errors that need correction.
4. The current conclusion section appears to be a summary of policy suggestions rather than a conclusion of the study. It would be more appropriate to reorganize the current Chapter 5 into Chapter 4 (Discussion) and the current Chapter 4 into Chapter 5 (Conclusion).
5. The conclusion should clearly restate how this study differs from previous research and its unique contributions.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We appreciate the time and effort that you and the reviewers dedicated to providing feedback on our manuscript and are grateful for your insightful comments and suggested improvements to our paper. 

Please refer to the attached file below for a point-by-point response to the reviewers' comments and concerns.

We have attached the revised manuscript, and the modified parts are highlighted in blue. We have carefully scrutinized it to make the corresponding revisions, including for errors in spelling, mathematical notation, and grammar. Thank you again for reviewing our manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

与以前的版本相比，手稿有了显着改进。所有问题均已在修订中讨论，审稿人在此阶段建议接受。

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your feedback and for recognizing the significant improvements in the revised manuscript titled “Advanced Integration of Urban Street Greenery and Pedestrian Flow: A Multidimensional Analysis in Chengdu's Central Urban District.” I appreciate your thoughtful comments and am glad to hear that all issues have been adequately addressed in the revision.

I am grateful for your recommendation to accept the manuscript at this stage.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This version is much better, I still have concerns listed as follows:

1. The fonts in images 1-6 should be consistent with those in the main text

2. The resolution of images 1-6 still cannot meet the requirements for publication.

3. The font size in table 3 is too large. Please check the font size in all tables.

4. Figure 2, the elevation map of Chengdu city looks strange, as many areas have strip-like elevation distribution, can you explain why?

Author Response

Comment 1: The fonts in images 1-6 should be consistent with those in the main text.

Response 1: The fonts in images 1-6 have been adjusted to ensure they are consistent with those in the main text. Please review the updated manuscript to evaluate these changes.

Comment 2: The resolution of images 1-6 still cannot meet the requirements for publication.

Response 2: The resolution of images 1-6 has been improved to meet the publication requirements. Please review the updated manuscript to evaluate these changes.

Comment 3: The font size in table 3 is too large. Please check the font size in all tables.

Response 3: The font size in Table 3 has been corrected. Additionally, I have reviewed and adjusted the font sizes in all tables to ensure consistency.

Comments 4: Figure 2, the elevation map of Chengdu city looks strange, as many areas have strip-like elevation distribution, can you explain why?

Response 4: The strip-like elevation distribution in the elevation map of Chengdu city has been investigated and clarified in the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf