Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In my opinion, this article has taken into consideration a very conventional method for investigating pedestrian circulation and its network in the city. Although its novelty is fully explained in one section (The Novelty of the Study), it is still not convincing.

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

This research pioneers a quantitative approach grounded in space syntax theory to model and analyze George Town's pedestrian environment, with the aim of unveiling effective strategies for optimizing pedestrian networks in historical cityscapes.

2. Do you consider the topic original or relevant in the field? Does it address a specific gap in the field?

The most important problem of this article is the topic of innovation, which is rarely seen in it.

3. What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material?

In my opinion, it adds very little to the existing literature on the subject.

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

Perhaps more innovation can be added by comparing two different methods together or two urban areas together.

5. Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and do they address the main question posed?

Yes, a good conclusion is made.

6. Are the references appropriate?

Yes, the references are appropriate.

7. Please include any additional comments on the tables and figures.

The quality and clarity of most of the tables and figures are not good.

Author Response

Response to Reviewers Sheet

The authors would like to thank the editor and the reviewers for their thoughtful, insightful and detailed comments and suggestions, which helped to improve the manuscript. The paper has been carefully reviewed in terms of the statements, the development of the arguments, the main focus of the study, the methods of analysis and the discussion. Following the comments from one of the reviewers, we have changed the title to reflect the contents of the paper. The title now reads: “Using a Space Syntax Approach to Enhance Pedestrians’ Accessibility and Safety in the Historic City of George Town, Penang”.

The new version of the manuscript has improved tremendously. We respond below in detail to each of the reviewer’s comments. In addition, we include how we have revised things, or if we have slightly disagreed with something, we provided the corresponding justification. We hope that the editor and reviewers will find our responses to their comments had been addressed satisfactory.

Reviewer #1

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comment (1.1): In my opinion, this article has taken into consideration a very conventional method for investigating pedestrian circulation and its network in the city. Although its novelty is fully explained in one section (The Novelty of the Study), it is still not convincing.

Response to comment (1.1): Thank you for your feedback. We recognize that our previous discussion on innovation may have overemphasized technical methods, failing to adequately highlight the true novelty and value of our article. In the revised manuscript, we have shifted our focus to emphasize the distinctiveness of George Town, including its urban form, architectural styles, and pedestrian environments. These characteristics significantly differ from the modern urban contexts typically studied in space syntax, necessitating a tailored approach and improvements upon traditional methods.

By highlighting George Town's uniqueness, we aim to bring a new level of awareness to its distinctive features. We also incorporate a comparison with previous pedestrian environment studies in George Town that primarily used questionnaires, as well as a discussion on the alignment with the George Town Special Area Plan (SAP). These additions enrich our research, demonstrating the practical significance of our study and the recommendations we propose, making them more relevant and applicable to the specific context of George Town (please refer to Section 5.5. The Novelty of the Study).

Comment (1.2): What is the main question addressed by the research?

This research pioneers a quantitative approach grounded in space syntax theory to model and analyze George Town's pedestrian environment, with the aim of unveiling effective strategies for optimizing pedestrian networks in historical cityscapes.

Reponses to comment (1.2): We thank the reviewer for this observation.

Comment (1.3): Do you consider the topic original or relevant in the field? Does it address a specific gap in the field?

The most important problem of this article is the topic of innovation, which is rarely seen in it.

Response to comment (1.3): Thank you for this comment. Indeed, our study may lack technical innovation, as we still employed traditional space syntax methods with the assistance of GIS technology. However, it's important to note that George Town is a city with distinctive characteristics. Its urban form, architectural styles, and pedestrian environments are quite different from what we typically see in modern cities. This means that applying general theories and conventional approaches to analyze George Town's pedestrian environment could lead to inaccuracies, or even fail to construct a proper walking network. This is due to the scarcity of traditional sidewalks in George Town and the prevalence of five-foot ways that integrate walkways with buildings, as well as residential roads with speed restrictions.

Therefore, our study had to adapt and innovate in terms of research methodology to suit George Town's unique context. This adaptation and innovation in approach form the main source of novelty in our research. We have created a model that specifically addresses the unique pedestrian dynamics of George Town, which is crucial for accurately understanding and enhancing its walking environment. Following the reviewer’s comments, we tried to clarify the innovation and novelty of our paper in the revised version.

Comment (1.4): What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material?

In my opinion, it adds very little to the existing literature on the subject.

Response to comment (1.4): Thank you for your comment. We acknowledge that our earlier draft may have overly emphasized the technical aspects of our study, which might have given the impression of limited applicability. This was a misdirection on our part. However, we want to highlight the unique nature of George Town. As a UNESCO World Heritage Site, George Town attracts a large number of tourists annually and serves as the cultural heart of Penang, with a significant residential and corporate presence. Yet, research on its pedestrian environment has been quite limited, often resorting to survey-based methodologies with similar approaches. Our study diverges by focusing on the physical form of the city, yielding valuable insights that contribute to enhancing urban walkability, safety, connectivity in certain areas, and the logic of the pedestrian network.

In the field of theory, there is a scarcity of space syntax literature specifically addressing Southeast Asian historical cities. The unique characteristics and representativeness of George Town can address this gap in space syntax research for such city types. In our revised manuscript, we have placed greater emphasis on these aspects. Additionally, we included a discussion on George Town's development plans to demonstrate the practical significance of our study (please refer to Section 5.4. Discussion on the Alignment with Current George Town Planning Strategies and 6. Conclusions).

Comment (1.5): What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the methodology? What further controls should be considered?

Perhaps more innovation can be added by comparing two different methods together or two urban areas together.

Response to comment (1.5): Thank you for your suggestion. In our revised manuscript, we have included a comparison between our study and previous research on George Town's pedestrian environment that primarily utilized questionnaires. Both approaches yielded similar findings regarding the low accessibility and poor connectivity of George Town's pedestrian environment. This alignment indicates that our research corresponds with people's actual perceptions, confirming the existence of structural issues in George Town's walking network. Benefiting from the visual advantages of space syntax, our study delves deeper into analyzing the causes, identifying key sections for resolving these structural problems, and proposing strategic recommendations. Additionally, we have incorporated policy research to demonstrate the practical significance and feasibility of our suggestions (please refer to Section 5.4).

Comment (1.6): Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and do they address the main question posed?

Yes, a good conclusion is made.

 Response to comment (1.6): Thank you for this comment.

Comment (1.7): Are the references appropriate?

Yes, the references are appropriate.

 Response to comment (1.7): Thanks for this comment.

Comment (1.8): Please include any additional comments on the tables and figures.

The quality and clarity of most of the tables and figures are not good.

Response to comment (1.8): Thank you for your feedback. We have increased the resolution and clarity of some images and improved the presentation of figures in our revised document (please refer to Figure 5, Figure 14, Figure 18, and Figure 21).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Navigating Heritage: Space Syntax Analysis for Optimizing Pedestrian Networks in Historic City of George Town, Penang 

Title: The word “Optimizing” is too broad because it sets up shortcomings about the paper’s findings. The paper’s conclusions are that two-way roads should become pedestrian zones and crossings should be zebra.  These two conclusions are transportation findings and less about using space syntax.  With space syntax, other issues could have been studied such as what people used to do in the historic spaces, in which environment people gather and why (spatial layout), and how people interact with others. The authors can still use space syntax but with narrower objectives in using space syntax. The paper’s title could be “Using Space Syntax to Optimize Safe Movement of Large Numbers of Pedestrians through the Historic City of George Town, Penang.”

Abstract: The authors also need to pull back on the language that suggests this is a pioneering study in applying space syntax to study a historic neighborhood. Space syntax was developed in the late 1970’s and many studies have been published, including about historic cities. Here are two examples:  

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S209526352300064X

http://sss8.cl/8193.pdf

Rather than making the broad statement…”Evaluation of George Town’s pedestrian network using space syntax indictors reveals significant challenges” (lines18-19)…the authors should be specific. This sentence offers more details, “Main attractions face accessibility issues, and dense pedestrian flows poses management challenges.” (lines 18-19) The authors could add the word “safety” because “managing” to get people to cross a road without a zebra crossing would get them across but they might not be seen by drivers.    

The text in lines 83-85 should be in the abstract rather than the general language…”theory of natural movement.” In this case, the authors are working to ensure the safety of the pedestrians rather than have all the pedestrians “move naturally” on a busy two-way road with no safe way to cross. 

The text on lines 101-103 should also be in the abstract. The reader needs to be told of the problems, what the authors did, and their conclusions rather than reading the words space syntax multiple times.

The text on lines 129-130 could also be in the abstract because this identifies the colonial plans (grid layout) that were applied in Penang. This is extremely interesting because the reader has perhaps not visited Penang.

The word “shophouses” and a definition should also be in the abstract because this gives detail and color that the reader will appreciate.  Sentences such as the last one in the abstract can be eliminated because it overstates the findings when space syntax has been applied in countless historic cities with more solutions than altering a two-way road and zebra crossings.  Give the reader “sidewalk, residential road, footbridge, five-foot way (really interesting), and Town Square.  This is a unique historic city and the reader needs to be told about it.  Illegal parking is also of interest, especially in a unique and interesting historic city (not every city has a Little India or Penang Street Art, Cheah Kongsi Temple, Chew Jetty, Fort Cornwallis..).   The authors can also tell the readers about the four indicators on line 192. 

The authors need to be reminded that they have a unique city and the readers will learn from their solutions.  There can be less focus on space syntax.  Many others have used GIS with space syntax. (lines 513-522)  Google Earth has some benefits but it, as mentioned, does not focus on human movement patterns. Google Earth also doesn’t look at issues such as pedestrian safety.  You are doing more than having space syntax natural movement theory show that the spaces’ layout influences human movement patterns.  That is just affirming the value of space syntax and you need to show what you found to improve the safety and movement of pedestrians in George Town. (line 519). 

For the Methodology and the Results, the above comments for the Abstract can be followed. Simplify the goals, show what is unique about the city (so you have the sympathy of the reader who sees the need for your study to help the pedestrians), and clearly describe that there is a need for safety from cars. 

The last two paragraphs (lines579-592) can be deleted.  Instead, use your concrete environmental details to show how policy can be changed to put in a barrier/raised sidewalk section along the busy road to protect pedestrians from cars and how you can get the zebra crossings.  Everyone can say that they want to enhance livability and maintain the unique historical character of a historic zone.  Who would want to say that they want to erase livability and destroy the unique historical character of a historic zone? Therefore, give the readers specifics. What are you going to do next to improve the two-way roads and put in the zebra crossings so other academics/planners, who may use space syntax to come up with similar solutions, will know how to implement the best ideas in their city? 

The article is worthy of being improved because having people walk, rather than ride in a car, is a solution to climate change, health, and socializing. 

Author Response

Response to Reviewers Sheet

The authors would like to thank the editor and the reviewers for their thoughtful, insightful and detailed comments and suggestions, which helped to improve the manuscript. The paper has been carefully reviewed in terms of the statements, the development of the arguments, the main focus of the study, the methods of analysis and the discussion. Following the comments from one of the reviewers, we have changed the title to reflect the contents of the paper. The title now reads: “Using a Space Syntax Approach to Enhance Pedestrians’ Accessibility and Safety in the Historic City of George Town, Penang”.

The new version of the manuscript has improved tremendously. We respond below in detail to each of the reviewer’s comments. In addition, we include how we have revised things, or if we have slightly disagreed with something, we provided the corresponding justification. We hope that the editor and reviewers will find our responses to their comments had been addressed satisfactory.

Reviewer #2

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Navigating Heritage: Space Syntax Analysis for Optimizing Pedestrian Networks in Historic City of George Town, Penang 

Comment (2.1): Title: The word “Optimizing” is too broad because it sets up shortcomings about the paper’s findings. The paper’s conclusions are that two-way roads should become pedestrian zones and crossings should be zebra.  These two conclusions are transportation findings and less about using space syntax.  With space syntax, other issues could have been studied such as what people used to do in the historic spaces, in which environment people gather and why (spatial layout), and how people interact with others. The authors can still use space syntax but with narrower objectives in using space syntax. The paper’s title could be “Using Space Syntax to Optimize Safe Movement of Large Numbers of Pedestrians through the Historic City of George Town, Penang.”

Response to comment (2.1): Thank you very much for your valuable suggestion. The term 'optimizing' was indeed too broad, an aspect we had overlooked. In light of your advice and considering our analysis and recommendations for the pedestrian network in George Town, we have revised our title to: "Using a Space Syntax Approach to Enhance Pedestrians’ Accessibility and Safety in the Historic City of George Town, Penang".

Comment (2.2): Abstract: The authors also need to pull back on the language that suggests this is a pioneering study in applying space syntax to study a historic neighborhood. Space syntax was developed in the late 1970’s and many studies have been published, including about historic cities. Here are two examples: 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S209526352300064X

http://sss8.cl/8193.pdf

Response to comment (2.2): Thank you for your advice. We agree that our previous statement might have been overly emphatic. Our intention was to highlight the relative scarcity of space syntax theory application in studies concerning George Town. Recognizing this, we have now removed that statement from our work (please refer to Abstract).

Comment (2.3): Rather than making the broad statement…”Evaluation of George Town’s pedestrian network using space syntax indictors reveals significant challenges” (lines18-19)…the authors should be specific. This sentence offers more details, “Main attractions face accessibility issues, and dense pedestrian flows poses management challenges.” (lines 18-19) The authors could add the word “safety” because “managing” to get people to cross a road without a zebra crossing would get them across but they might not be seen by drivers.   

Respones to comment (2.3): Thank you for your suggestion. Regarding the current major challenges in the pedestrian environment of George Town, specific details have been added. These challenges include weak local pedestrian connectivity, insufficient accessibility to key tourist attractions, spatial logic below expectations, overly concentrated pedestrian flow, and an emphasis on safety concerns. Following the Reviewer’s suggestion, we used the word “safety”, “managing dense pedestrian flow” and “accessibility issues” (please refer to lines 12-15, 23-29, and 109).

Comment (2.4): The text in lines 83-85 should be in the abstract rather than the general language…”theory of natural movement.” In this case, the authors are working to ensure the safety of the pedestrians rather than have all the pedestrians “move naturally” on a busy two-way road with no safe way to cross. 

Response to comment (2.4): Thank you for your suggestion. We have incorporated a summary of the contents from lines 83 to 85 into the abstract. The main focus is on the significant advantages of space syntax in addressing the integrity issues of historical cities. It enables better problem identification and also emphasizes safety concerns (please refer to Abstract).

Comment (2.5): The text on lines 101-103 should also be in the abstract. The reader needs to be told of the problems, what the authors did, and their conclusions rather than reading the words space syntax multiple times.

Response to comment (2.5): Thank you for your feedback and suggestions. You are absolutely right; we should emphasize more on what we have accomplished in our abstract rather than focusing on a specific theory. We have strengthened this aspect in our new abstract following your advice (please refer to Abstract).

Comment (2.6): The text on lines 129-130 could also be in the abstract because this identifies the colonial plans (grid layout) that were applied in Penang. This is extremely interesting because the reader has perhaps not visited Penang.

Response to comment (2.6): Thank you for your comments and suggestions. Indeed, it's important to provide readers with an initial understanding of Penang's urban layout from the start. We have incorporated this point into our updated abstract (please refer to Abstract, lines 17-19).

Comment (2.7): The word “shophouses” and a definition should also be in the abstract because this gives detail and color that the reader will appreciate.  Sentences such as the last one in the abstract can be eliminated because it overstates the findings when space syntax has been applied in countless historic cities with more solutions than altering a two-way road and zebra crossings. Give the reader “sidewalk, residential road, footbridge, five-foot way (really interesting), and Town Square.  This is a unique historic city and the reader needs to be told about it.  Illegal parking is also of interest, especially in a unique and interesting historic city (not every city has a Little India or Penang Street Art, Cheah Kongsi Temple, Chew Jetty, Fort Cornwallis..). The authors can also tell the readers about the four indicators on line 192. 

Response to comment (2.7): Thank you for your comments and suggestions. Your insights have been enlightening. Indeed, in our prior writing, we neglected to convey to our readers the intriguing uniqueness of the city we are studying, focusing instead on mundane methodologies. In our abstract, we have now emphasized more on Penang's distinct features, such as its shophouses and five-foot ways, and have elaborated on how we incorporated these characteristics into the construction of our pedestrian network model (please refer to Abstract, lines 19-24).

Comment (2.8): The authors need to be reminded that they have a unique city and the readers will learn from their solutions.  There can be less focus on space syntax.  Many others have used GIS with space syntax. (lines 513-522)  Google Earth has some benefits but it, as mentioned, does not focus on human movement patterns. Google Earth also doesn’t look at issues such as pedestrian safety.  You are doing more than having space syntax natural movement theory show that the spaces’ layout influences human movement patterns.  That is just affirming the value of space syntax and you need to show what you found to improve the safety and movement of pedestrians in George Town. (line 519). 

Response to comment (2.8): Thank you again for your comments and suggestions. Indeed, we were previously too fixated on emphasizing the methodology. Yes, the crucial aspect is identifying and resolving issues using space syntax. We will concentrate on highlighting these elements (please refer to 5.5. The Novelty of the Study).

Comment (2.9): For the Methodology and the Results, the above comments for the Abstract can be followed. Simplify the goals, show what is unique about the city (so you have the sympathy of the reader who sees the need for your study to help the pedestrians), and clearly describe that there is a need for safety from cars. 

Response to comment (2.9): Thank you for your suggestions, which we found very pertinent. In our article, we further emphasized the uniqueness of George Town and its value as a World Heritage Site, along with our targeted analysis for the same. We also discussed the alignment of our research with George Town's future plans. Additionally, we highlighted the importance of safety, including issues arising from the absence or unavailability of pedestrian pathways, forcing people to navigate through busy vehicular traffic (please refer to Section 5.4 and lines 202-204, 271-277).

Comment (2.10): The last two paragraphs (lines579-592) can be deleted.  Instead, use your concrete environmental details to show how policy can be changed to put in a barrier/raised sidewalk section along the busy road to protect pedestrians from cars and how you can get the zebra crossings.  Everyone can say that they want to enhance livability and maintain the unique historical character of a historic zone.  Who would want to say that they want to erase livability and destroy the unique historical character of a historic zone? Therefore, give the readers specifics. What are you going to do next to improve the two-way roads and put in the zebra crossings so other academics/planners, who may use space syntax to come up with similar solutions, will know how to implement the best ideas in their city? 

Response to comment (2.10): Thank you for your suggestions and feedback. We have removed the relevant content and no longer emphasize technical theories such as space syntax and GIS. Instead, we have included detailed procedures on how to obtain the analysis results, along with specific recommendations for optimizing the pedestrian space structure (please refer to 6. Conclusions).

Comment (2.11): The article is worthy of being improved because having people walk, rather than ride in a car, is a solution to climate change, health, and socializing. 

Response to comment (2.11): Thank you for your feedback. We have revised our article to shift the emphasis from technical methods to the uniqueness of George Town, how we adapt to its distinctive environment, and the paramount importance of pedestrian safety. With this approach, we more closely align with reality, clarifying the reasons for the extremely low accessibility of pedestrian environments in certain areas and offering specific recommendations. Additionally, we discussed how our research and suggestions fit with George Town's development plans.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper lacks clarity on the indicators used for the analysis. In particular, the legends in the figures only indicate high and low without specific numerical values, making it difficult to claim scientific verification.

I am not native English speaker and would like not to say.

Author Response

Response to Reviewers Sheet

The authors would like to thank the editor and the reviewers for their thoughtful, insightful and detailed comments and suggestions, which helped to improve the manuscript. The paper has been carefully reviewed in terms of the statements, the development of the arguments, the main focus of the study, the methods of analysis and the discussion. Following the comments from one of the reviewers, we have changed the title to reflect the contents of the paper. The title now reads: “Using a Space Syntax Approach to Enhance Pedestrians’ Accessibility and Safety in the Historic City of George Town, Penang”.

The new version of the manuscript has improved tremendously. We respond below in detail to each of the reviewer’s comments. In addition, we include how we have revised things, or if we have slightly disagreed with something, we provided the corresponding justification. We hope that the editor and reviewers will find our responses to their comments had been addressed satisfactory.

Reviewer #3

Comment (3.1): This paper lacks clarity on the indicators used for the analysis. In particular, the legends in the figures only indicate high and low without specific numerical values, making it difficult to claim scientific verification.

Response to comment (3.1): Thank you for your comment. We would like to clarify and explain that in fact, for each image in our study, including the maps for the four indices and the comparative maps post-improvement, we have displayed numerical data such as maximum, minimum, median, mean, and standard deviation values. These values are analyzed in the text of our study. However, displaying the specific values for each individual road segment is not feasible, as this is not common practice in space syntax research. Each line segment in space syntax analysis has its own unique value, and displaying all these values on the map would compromise its readability.

To enhance the scientific rigor of our study, in our revised manuscript, we have included the formulas for calculating each of these indices. These calculations are performed automatically by the Depthmap software. This addition aims to provide a clearer understanding of the methodology behind our analysis (please refer to Section 3.3. Research Framework and Indicator System Construction).

We hope that the reviewer will find our responses to his/her comments satisfactory.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

First and foremost, I would like to commend authors for conducting morphological study of this kind in Malaysia, and providing an in-depth analysis of pedestrian infrastructure in George Town. 

I have few general comments which will be followed by specific ones. 

1. The article would benefit for more detailed analysis of the state of the art in this field. It is very hard to claim "substantial contribution" in this field without mentioning Qgis space syntax toolkit  or referencing any research from Space Syntax Symposium.  

2. The research design is closer to the professional article than scientific one since the hypothesis are not clear while all elements that would bring scientific contribution are mentioned as limitations (From my perspective, I would like to have chance to read how the results of analysis differ from planning documents and what would be constraints for implementing these new pedestrian streets or crossings). 

If I am not mistaken - authors propose incremental increase of quality of pedestrian movement by making only 10 new pedestrian lines (Fig 21). If this is the case, it is very important for conclusion and should be elaborated in detailed and compared to current city priorities. 

Specific comments:

Line 81 - The line where authors describe Space syntax, Julienne Hanson is unfairly left out next to Bill Hillier. 

Figures 5 to 9 - Map is repeated too many times. Suggestion to authors is to provide one proper map where roads will be named 1, 2, 3, 4... with marked position of photographs as 1a, 1b, 1c ... (without confusing red curved lines) and another where figures will be shown and named accordingly. 

Figure 6 caption - please be precise - is pedestrian movement forbidden (inaccessible) or there is low level of accessibility (no sidewalks, etc)?

Figures 21 to 25 -  Advise is to be consistent and always use first map of the existing state and than improved one. 

Figures 21 to 25 - the resolution is very low so changes are not visible 

Author Response

Response to Reviewers Sheet

The authors would like to thank the editor and the reviewers for their thoughtful, insightful and detailed comments and suggestions, which helped to improve the manuscript. The paper has been carefully reviewed in terms of the statements, the development of the arguments, the main focus of the study, the methods of analysis and the discussion. Following the comments from one of the reviewers, we have changed the title to reflect the contents of the paper. The title now reads: “Using a Space Syntax Approach to Enhance Pedestrians’ Accessibility and Safety in the Historic City of George Town, Penang”.

The new version of the manuscript has improved tremendously. We respond below in detail to each of the reviewer’s comments. In addition, we include how we have revised things, or if we have slightly disagreed with something, we provided the corresponding justification. We hope that the editor and reviewers will find our responses to their comments had been addressed satisfactory.

Reviewer #4

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comment (4.1): First and foremost, I would like to commend authors for conducting morphological study of this kind in Malaysia, and providing an in-depth analysis of pedestrian infrastructure in George Town. 

Response to comment (4.1): Thank you for your comments and praise.

I have few general comments which will be followed by specific ones. 

Comment (4.2): The article would benefit for more detailed analysis of the state of the art in this field. It is very hard to claim "substantial contribution" in this field without mentioning Qgis space syntax toolkit or referencing any research from Space Syntax Symposium.  

Response to comment (4.2): Thank you for your feedback. Indeed, in our study, we did not utilize the QGIS-related space syntax toolkit but instead conducted traditional analysis using Depthmap, supplemented by more extensive analysis in ArcGIS. We recognize that in terms of technical methodology, our study does not mark a significant breakthrough. Therefore, in the revised version of our paper, we have shifted our focus. We no longer emphasize innovation in technical methods but rather highlight the uniqueness of George Town itself, including its urban form and architecture. Our innovative approaches include adapting the axial line drawing for the five-foot ways under different conditions, setting appropriate study radii, considering residential roads as walkable spaces, and emphasizing the characteristics of George Town’s informal grid layout. This shift makes our recommendations more relevant to the actual context of George Town. This approach is beneficial, as George Town, with its status as a World Heritage Site, is unique, and yet research on its pedestrian environment has been limited (please refer to Abstract and Section 5.5. The Novelty of the Study).

Comment (4.3): The research design is closer to the professional article than scientific one since the hypothesis are not clear while all elements that would bring scientific contribution are mentioned as limitations (From my perspective, I would like to have chance to read how the results of analysis differ from planning documents and what would be constraints for implementing these new pedestrian streets or crossings). If I am not mistaken - authors propose incremental increase of quality of pedestrian movement by making only 10 new pedestrian lines (Fig 21). If this is the case, it is very important for conclusion and should be elaborated in detailed and compared to current city priorities. 

Response to comment (4.3): Thank you for your comments and suggestions, which have been immensely beneficial. Indeed, our original article lacked a discussion on George Town's own development plans. In response, we referred to the George Town Special Area Plan (SAP) and its latest updates, adding a separate section to discuss how our research aligns with the SAP. Interestingly, our study highlighted the need to enhance pedestrian facilities in the eastern and northern seafront areas, whose absence or unavailability undermines their value. Coincidentally, eastern and northern seafront areas are the exact areas where the SAP aims to strengthen public spaces. Furthermore, we discussed how our principle of moderation (focusing on pedestrian environments around major two-way roads that significantly impact the overall structure) aligns with the SAP's priority for building conservation. This indeed adds greater practical relevance to our research (please refer to 5.4. Discussion on the Alignment with Current George Town Planning Strategies).

Specific comments:

Comment (4.4): Line 81 - The line where authors describe Space syntax, Julienne Hanson is unfairly left out next to Bill Hillier. 

Response to comment (4.4): Thank you for your comment. It was an oversight on our part. In the revised version, we have included Julienne Hanson and acknowledged her contributions to space syntax theory (please refer to line 90).

Comment (4.5): Figures 5 to 9 - Map is repeated too many times. Suggestion to authors is to provide one proper map where roads will be named 1, 2, 3, 4... with marked position of photographs as 1a, 1b, 1c ... (without confusing red curved lines) and another where figures will be shown and named accordingly. 

Response to comment (4.5): Thank you for your suggestion. Indeed, the original excessive use of images in our presentation was impacting the reading experience. We have implemented the strategy you mentioned to improve this aspect, and we are very grateful for your advice (please refer to Figure 5).

Comment (4.6): Figure 6 caption - please be precise - is pedestrian movement forbidden (inaccessible) or there is low level of accessibility (no sidewalks, etc)?

Response to comment (4.6): Thank you for your comment and suggestion. We have clarified the term as "very low accessibility" and have made the revisions (please refer to 3.4.1. Identifying the George Town Pedestrian Environment, esp. line 271 and Figure 5).

Comment (4.7): Figures 21 to 25 -  Advise is to be consistent and always use first map of the existing state and than improved one. 

Response to comment (4.7): Thank you for your suggestion. We have revised the images to ensure consistency (please refer to Figures 19, 20 and 21).

Comment (4.8): Figures 21 to 25 - the resolution is very low so changes are not visible 

Response to comment (4.8): Thank you for your feedback and suggestion. Indeed, the original image had clarity issues. We have updated the image and enhanced its resolution to address this problem (please refer to Figures 19, 20 and 21).

We thank the reviewers for these valuable comments. We have tried our best to address all the issues raised and we hope that the reviewers will find the revised version acceptable.  

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

With the changes made in the revised version, the article is acceptable.

Author Response

Thank you for your recognition.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The abstract in this form for submitting the review is the old version. The new abstract was in the manuscript that could be downloaded. The revised Abstract  was the one that was reviewed.

Using a Space Syntax Approach to Enhance Pedestrians’ Accessibility and Safety in the Historic City of George Town, Penang

Second Review 12 18 23

The authors have greatly improved the article.  Below are minor suggestions based on new information in the revised manuscript.

Abstract: Line 22. The authors have in the sentence, “…but other studies have shown...”  This section identifies a problem and the problems were discussed from the middle of line 16 and up. In line 16, the authors write, “This study, based on space syntax,…” The problems should be discussed first, the study discussed next, and then the findings, all in sequential order. The reader is confused if the authors introduce a problem identified in a prior study (line 22) when their mind is focused on what the authors did in this study (starting on line 16). In the Abstract, the authors can include the below three facts that have been added to the revised manuscript. Some readers only read the Abstract and need to understand this city. With this information, more readers will be intrigued and want to read the entire article.

1) It is hot in Malaysia (lines 384-385).  This gives the authors even more reason to focus on walking environments because walking a long distance beside a two-way paved road would mean walking in a “heat island.”  This shows the article has urgently needed solutions for climate change and therefore should be in the Abstract.

2. In the Abstract, the authors mention UNESCO but, more specifically, mention should also be made that there is a George Town Special Area Plan (SAP) that was established in 2016 (lines 578-579). The authors had a plan (SAP) to guide their study and reinforce their findings.  With their study, the authors added climate-responsive and safety information to the SAP. Mention is also made on lines 582-584 about enhancing public spaces along the north and east seafronts.  The readers do not have access to the maps in the manuscript and should be told in the Abstract that George Town has seacoasts.

3. Did the authors look at the existence of trees or the shade available in the narrow walkways to address the issue of Malaysia being hot?   A simple comparison could be made using Google Street View, as some of the environments are narrow and have shade from buildings.

Conclusion: The conclusion does not and should mention the SAP plan. The SAP plan was conducted in 2016 when climate change was less of an issue and the authors can mention this.  The authors have stated the worthwhile objective in lines 381-385 about addressing heat and the need for optimal walking distances for youth and adults. The authors can demonstrate that their study was conducted in 2023, well after 2016 (before the crisis of climate change was elevated), and that they have a study that is extremely current and essential for addressing today’s concerns.

Author Response

urbansci-2742542

Response to Reviewers Sheet

The authors would like to thank the editor and the reviewers for their thoughtful, insightful and detailed comments and suggestions, which helped to improve the manuscript. The new version of the manuscript has improved tremendously. We respond below in detail to each of the reviewer’s comments. We hope that the editor and reviewers will find our responses to their comments had been addressed satisfactory.

Reviewer #2

Comment: The authors have greatly improved the article. Below are minor suggestions based on new information in the revised manuscript.

Abstract: Line 22. The authors have in the sentence, “…but other studies have shown...”  This section identifies a problem and the problems were discussed from the middle of line 16 and up. In line 16, the authors write, “This study, based on space syntax,…” The problems should be discussed first, the study discussed next, and then the findings, all in sequential order. The reader is confused if the authors introduce a problem identified in a prior study (line 22) when their mind is focused on what the authors did in this study (starting on line 16).

Response to comment: Thank you for your advice and feedback. Your suggestions have indeed improved the logical flow of the abstract. We have incorporated the changes in the updated abstract (please refer to Abstract).

Comment: In the Abstract, the authors can include the below three facts that have been added to the revised manuscript. Some readers only read the Abstract and need to understand this city. With this information, more readers will be intrigued and want to read the entire article.

It is hot in Malaysia (lines 384-385). This gives the authors even more reason to focus on walking environments because walking a long distance beside a two-way paved road would mean walking in a “heat island.”  This shows the article has urgently needed solutions for climate change and therefore should be in the Abstract.

Response to comment: Thank you for your suggestion. In the revised abstract, we have added a description of the hot climate in Malaysia (please refer to Abstract). Now it reads:

Space syntax theory, known for revealing structural issues within urban contexts, is applied after a thorough examination of George Town's urban layout, climate, architectural features, and development policies. George Town employs an informal grid layout, widely utilized in British colonial port cities to enhance overall efficiency. The predominant architectural form is the shophouse, characterized by a ground level designed for pedestrian movement known as the "five-foot way,” adapted to Malaysia’s climate. Various axis drawing methods for the unique five-foot way under different circumstances are considered.

Comment: In the Abstract, the authors mention UNESCO but, more specifically, mention should also be made that there is a George Town Special Area Plan (SAP) that was established in 2016 (lines 578-579). The authors had a plan (SAP) to guide their study and reinforce their findings.  With their study, the authors added climate-responsive and safety information to the SAP. Mention is also made on lines 582-584 about enhancing public spaces along the north and east seafronts.  The readers do not have access to the maps in the manuscript and should be told in the Abstract that George Town has seacoasts.

Response to comment: Thank you for your suggestions and feedback. In the revised abstract, we have incorporated content related to SAP, specifically focusing on cultural heritage conservation. We have positioned SAP as a priority for George Town, emphasizing its intention to strengthen public spaces in the city, particularly in the eastern and northern waterfront areas (please refer to Abstract). Now it reads:  

The George Town Special Area Plan (SAP), emphasizing heritage preservation, guides development policies, requiring an inclusive approach to pedestrian environments. This enhances the practical significance of the current study, with the eastern and northern coastal areas serving as crucial focal points for investigation.

Comment: Did the authors look at the existence of trees or the shade available in the narrow walkways to address the issue of Malaysia being hot?   A simple comparison could be made using Google Street View, as some of the environments are narrow and have shade from buildings.

Response to comment: Thank you for your suggestions and feedback. In this study, we have considered the issue of hot climate in two aspects. Firstly, the significance of five-foot ways is addressed. In fact, five-foot ways are a response to the hot climate and heavy rain, as these special walkways are integrated with shophouse architecture. People are shielded from direct sunlight, making five-foot ways more prevalent than sidewalks in Malaysia. Secondly, in our use of space syntax analysis, we set a suitable radius of 400 meters, referencing studies on walking in Malaysia. In the context of Malaysia's hot climate, 400 meters is considered a more suitable walking distance.

Comment: Conclusion: The conclusion does not and should mention the SAP plan. The SAP plan was conducted in 2016 when climate change was less of an issue and the authors can mention this.  The authors have stated the worthwhile objective in lines 381-385 about addressing heat and the need for optimal walking distances for youth and adults. The authors can demonstrate that their study was conducted in 2023, well after 2016 (before the crisis of climate change was elevated), and that they have a study that is extremely current and essential for addressing today’s concerns.

Reponse to comment: Thank you for your feedback and suggestions. In the conclusion, we have included a discussion of SAP to highlight the alignment of our research with the future planning of George Town. Additionally, we revised the content related to SAP (please refer to 3.1. Policy Research).

In the initial revised draft, SAP was discussed towards the end, but in the second revision, we placed it earlier in the discussion to emphasize its importance as a key reference and premise for the research design (please refer to lines 599-603). Now it reads:

It is crucial to note that George Town is a historically significant city with distinctive features, encompassing its urban layout, architectural forms, and its status as a UNESCO World Heritage Site, coupled with its unique development policies. Therefore, this study commenced by thoroughly understanding the urban characteristics of George Town, integrating the SAP to formulate the research strategy.

Also refer to lines 677-684:

The research align with George Town's current planning and development strategy. The identified road segments in this study play a crucial role in the overall structure, situated on both sides of main roads, with fewer heritage buildings and a potential for improvement. The eastern coastal area is particularly concentrated for increasing pedestrian space, coinciding with the SAP's explicit designation for enhancing and increasing public space development. The study suggests elevating pedestrian environment development to a top priority in public space construction, considering it as the foundational space that connects other public areas.

However, we want to clarify that while SAP was proposed in 2016, it was fully finished in 2022. Our previous wording may have caused some confusion, and we have adjusted our statements accordingly. It is important to note that, although our study considers the climate in Malaysia for more accurate analyses, we did not delve into discussions about climate change or issues such as the urban heat island effect. These topics were not part of the scope of our research.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

I would like to thank authors for the revised version and provided answers to comments and suggestions. The paper has been technically improved although some figures should be improved in terms of readability. Anyhow, I have to mention that I have to disagree that authors have made substantial changes to the study. 
Manuscript still lacks theoretical grounding - I did not detected that any reference  regarding recent theoretical contribution has been added in the revised version.

I commend authors for revision of the Discussion and Conclusion sections which undergone under most intensive revision but I am doubting the authors decision to include plan in the final stages of the paper and basing main concluding remarks on the fact that space syntax analysis reveals same results to the already existing plans (I do not have anything against that approach if it was set as a hypothesis at the very start). Maybe the use of space syntax for setting priorities would be more beneficial (along with simulations on the improvement level.

The statement that I also noticed in the revised version concerns participation (line  596) - conducting surveys is on the lowest level of participation so I would be careful with introducing new elements in the conclusion. 

Author Response

urbansci-2742542

Response to Reviewers Sheet

The authors would like to thank the editor and the reviewers for their thoughtful, insightful and detailed comments and suggestions, which helped to improve the manuscript. The new version of the manuscript has improved tremendously. We respond below in detail to each of the reviewer’s comments. We hope that the editor and reviewers will find our responses to their comments had been addressed satisfactory.

Reviewer #4

Comment: I would like to thank authors for the revised version and provided answers to comments and suggestions. The paper has been technically improved although some figures should be improved in terms of readability.

Response to comment: Thank you for your comments and suggestions. We have re-examined the figures and made several modifications, including increasing font size, adjusting layouts, and enlarging image sizes wherever possible.

Comment: Anyhow, I have to mention that I have to disagree that authors have made substantial changes to the study. Manuscript still lacks theoretical grounding - I did not detected that any reference  regarding recent theoretical contribution has been added in the revised version.

Reponse to comment: Thank you for your comments and suggestions. We acknowledge that our original manuscript lacked an overview of the existing literature. To address this, we have added two paragraphs to fill this gap. We gathered information on four studies conducted after 2020 that applied space syntax to historic cities and their pedestrian spaces. We provided detailed critiques of each study, discussing their characteristics, methodologies, and limitations. These recent studies underscore the validity of space syntax in addressing spatial structural issues. They highlight the advantages of integrating spatial layout with tourist attractions and economic activities. Furthermore, we found that space syntax research should extend beyond two-dimensional analysis from these studies. We emphasized the significance of conducting on-site investigations to analyze three-dimensional scenarios. Additionally, the integration of Points of Interest (POIs) data and the differentiation of road hierarchies were highlighted as essential factors to enhance the accuracy of our analytical results, aspects that were incorporated into our study (please refer to lines 611-615). Lastly, we acknowledged the limitation that space syntax studies may not fully capture pedestrians' subjective experiences (please refer to lines 104-140). Now it reads:

Historic cities have always been a focal point in space syntax research, and the related theoretical framework continues to be enriched. A key characteristic of this research is the use of space syntax to link the urban spatial layout and economic activities with the intrinsic values of historic cities. Liao et al. [36] selected Pingyao, Lijiang, Gulangyu, and Wuzhen, four representative historical towns, for their analysis. By integrating spatial syntax results with Points of Interest (POIs) data, they discovered that areas with higher integration degrees had more concentrated tourism functions. This led to proposed optimization strategies for land use. This study demonstrated the applicability of spatial syntax to ancient Chinese cities, but it was limited to two-dimensional analysis, lacking in-depth exploration and analysis of three-dimensional scenes. In a related vein, Wang et al. [37] applied space syntax in Nanjing's historic region to establish a correlation between the spatial distribution of tourism services and the street network. Their research, utilizing data from location-based services, suggested optimal locations for transportation, accommodation, and leisure facilities to foster sustainable urban development, though it did not account for the influence of street level, landscape features, and economic indicators on service distribution.

Further emphasizing the importance of pedestrian environments, Wang and Zhou [17] advocated for the enhancement of these environments in historic areas through space syntax analysis. They focused on four key parameters to evaluate spatial structure and road network characteristics, aiming to improve pedestrian experiences and address transport challenges in cultural tourism areas. This approach stressed the need for feasibility analyses based on actual traffic and road conditions. Lastly, Xu et al. [38] introduced a novel space-grammar approach to evaluate the experiential qualities of historic streets in Nanxun, focusing on factors like complexity, consistency, mystery, and legibility. Their findings highlighted the need for careful conservation and restoration planning to maintain these qualities in the face of development pressures. They also suggested that the study could benefit from additional experiential quality analyses, such as surveys, to better correlate residents' and visitors' perceptions with the spatial characteristics identified. Space syntax has proven highly effective in analyzing historical cities and their pedestrian environments, especially in assessing spatial structures and road networks. Its scientific efficacy in these domains is well-established by extensive research. When combined with Points of Interest (POIs) data, road hierarchy details, and three-dimensional imagery, space syntax enables more holistic analyses, linking urban spatial configurations to tourism and economic factors. Nonetheless, while it offers substantial insights, space syntax does not completely capture the perceptions of tourists and residents regarding urban streets. Despite this limitation, it serves as a crucial foundational tool for experiential research in urban studies.

Comment: I commend authors for revision of the Discussion and Conclusion sections which undergone under most intensive revision but I am doubting the authors decision to include plan in the final stages of the paper and basing main concluding remarks on the fact that space syntax analysis reveals same results to the already existing plans (I do not have anything against that approach if it was set as a hypothesis at the very start). Maybe the use of space syntax for setting priorities would be more beneficial (along with simulations on the improvement level.

Response to comment: Thank you for your comments and suggestions. We previously added the policy research section at the end of the article, which indeed lacked logical flow. We have taken your advice and placed it near the beginning of the article, positioning it as a crucial premise for the research design (please refer to 3.1. Policy Research). Additionally, we discussed the policy relevance in the conclusion section. This makes our study more practically significant, and the proposed recommendations become more actionable (please refer to lines 677-684).

Comment: The statement that I also noticed in the revised version concerns participation (line 596) - conducting surveys is on the lowest level of participation so I would be careful with introducing new elements in the conclusion.

Response to comment: Thank you for your comments. However, there might be some misunderstanding in this paragraph. In the article, our intention was to convey that, based on other studies on George Town, the predominant method employed was surveys, reflecting public dissatisfaction with the pedestrian environment in George Town. SAP, emphasizes the importance of considering public opinions and increasing public participation. The idea expressed here is that our study can further investigate the necessity of studying the pedestrian network characteristics in George Town. It doesn't imply that our study involved extensive public participation. Upon reflecting on this misunderstanding, we have added citation to clarify the relevant statements (please refer to Section 3.1. Policy Research and 6. Conclusions).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 4 Report

I appreciate authors effort to increase quality of the manuscript. I sincerely believe that this revised version is on a much higher level than originally submitted manuscript. 

For further reference and research I will advise authors to take a closer look at UCL space syntax laboratory, and specifically on Dr Sam Griffiths’s work whose interest are in the domain or interrelating space syntax and historical research. .