Next Article in Journal
A Generalized Linear Mixed Model Approach to Assess Emerald Ash Borer Diffusion
Previous Article in Journal
User Experience in Using Graphical User Interfaces of Web Maps
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Urban Ageing in Europe—Spatiotemporal Analysis of Determinants

ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2020, 9(7), 413; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi9070413
by Karolina Lewandowska-Gwarda * and Elżbieta Antczak
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2020, 9(7), 413; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi9070413
Submission received: 15 May 2020 / Revised: 25 June 2020 / Accepted: 25 June 2020 / Published: 27 June 2020

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Very good paper, well designed, organized and structured, with very interesting results. 

The only limitation is the quality of the map. Given the interesting results, it would be interesting to dedicate a wider space to map in the paper. They appear too small and symbols too big and overlapping. Also, a graphic scale would be appreciated. Maps should therefore be more readable. 

A part from that, the paper is very good and I did like it.  

Author Response

Thank you very much for the review of the manuscript Urban Ageing in Europe - Spatiotemporal Analysis of Determinants. We have revised the manuscript according to the Reviewers' comments. All remarks were highly insightful and enabled us to greatly improve the quality of the manuscript. We hope that the revisions in the manuscript and our accompanying responses will be sufficient to make the manuscript suitable for publication in the ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information.

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

"Very good paper, well designed, organized and structured, with very interesting results. The only limitation is the quality of the map. Given the interesting results, it would be interesting to dedicate a wider space to map in the paper. They appear too small and symbols too big and overlapping. Also, a graphic scale would be appreciated. Maps should therefore be more readable. A part from that, the paper is very good and I did like it."

We appreciate the Reviewer’s decision and we would like to thank for all the comments and remarks. All maps have been improved (pages 6-8 and 15-19) – enlarged (wider space for maps was dedicated in the paper), graphic scales have also been added. We hope that maps are now more readable.

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper analyzed the Eurosat data to identify the aging processing and spatial variations in European cities using GIS. Although GIS methods used in this research are very common such as Spatial Autocorrelation and GWR (Geographically Weighted Regression), overall paper is well written and analyzed. The research outcomes and discussion are more appropriate to social science readers. I have only one minor comment in map figures. Better to include map scalebar in figure 2 to 4 if you want to show your size of the features.

Author Response

Thank you very much for the review of the manuscript Urban Ageing in Europe - Spatiotemporal Analysis of Determinants. We have revised the manuscript according to the Reviewers' comments. All remarks were highly insightful and enabled us to greatly improve the quality of the manuscript. We hope that the revisions in the manuscript and our accompanying responses will be sufficient to make the manuscript suitable for publication in the ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information.

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

"This paper analyzed the Eurosat data to identify the aging processing and spatial variations in European cities using GIS. Although GIS methods used in this research are very common such as Spatial Autocorrelation and GWR (Geographically Weighted Regression), overall paper is well written and analyzed. The research outcomes and discussion are more appropriate to social science readers. I have only one minor comment in map figures. Better to include map scale bar in figure 2 to 4 if you want to show your size of the features."

We thank the Reviewer for the careful reading of the manuscript and her/his constructive remarks. We corrected the paper according to the Reviewer’s remarks. We have included map scale bars in figures 2 to 4 (pages 6-8 and 15-19).

Reviewer 3 Report

Thanks for the opportunity to review this paper. 

Although the topic of this paper is interesting, the paper suffers from some flaws.

  • The indicator selection process needs to be clear and justified. Some important factors that are available are missing (e.g., public transport or urban life satisfaction related data).
  • Separating men and women needs more justifications. It is not clear why the effects of gender cannot be explained as a factor in the model.
  • It is not clear why we need to use the Kruskal-Wallis test and why we cannot use ANOVA.
  • How about the post hoc test?
  • The spatial weighting scheme for LISA is not presented.
  • Since potential high correlations among the different independent variables in this study may lead to multicollinearity, applying nonparametric geographically weighted algorithms can be considered as one possible option.
  • The method and result sections are mixed. It is better to separate these sections.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Although some of my comments have been addressed, the paper still needs some revisions:

  • I believe considering potential high correlations among the different independent variables by applying nonparametric geographically weighted algorithms is better than just ignoring them.
  • I still do not understand why we cannot include the gender in the model to see the effects instead of proposing two separate models for males and females.
  • In addition, there are more indicators in the Eurostat and you just need to push add bottom. For example, for transport, you can find the following data:
    • TT1003V Share of journeys to work by car -%
    • TT1010V Share of journeys to work by public transport (rail, metro, bus, tram) -%
    • TT1006V Share of journeys to work by motor cycle -%
    • TT1007V Share of journeys to work by bicycle -%
    • TT1008V Share of journeys to work by foot -%
    • TT1012V Share of journeys to work by car or motor cycle -%
    • TT1019V Average time of journey to work - minutes
    • TT1020V Average length of journey to work by private car - km
    • TT1064V People commuting into the city
    • TT1065V People commuting out of the city
    • TT1079V Length of bicycle network (dedicated cycle paths and lanes) - km
    • TT1080V Cost of a combined monthly ticket (all modes of public transport) for 5-10 km in the central zone - EUR
    • TT1081V Cost of a taxi ride of 5 km to the centre at day time - EUR
    • TT1057V Number of private cars registered
    • TT1060V Number of deaths in road accidents
    • TT1057I Number of registered cars per 1000 population
    • TT1060I People killed in road accidents per 10000 pop.
  • You can also find urban life satisfaction related data that are more relevant in this case.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop