Impact of Neighborhood Urban Morphologies on Walkability Using Spatial Multi-Criteria Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study is an interesting investigation into the possibilities of using urban space in a more sustainable way. It has an eminently applicable character, as the authors show the possibilities of using GIS for intra-urban spatial analyses. These analyses can be used by local authorities to develop strategies for the development and management of different areas in the city. In order for the article to be suitable for publication in a scientific journal, it should be strengthened from a methodological point of view. It lacks a clearly defined objective, research hypotheses as well as a discussion and comparison of the results obtained with similar studies in other cities. I suggest that the authors restructure the article so that its structure complies with the requirements of a scientific journal. Nevertheless, I emphasise that this study is very interesting and worthy of publication once corrected.

 

Author Response

Dear Esteemed Reviewer,

 

Thank you so much for your insightful and additive comments. Below are our responses to them, we hope you find them satisfying.

 

General Note:

According to the reviewers' requests for rearranging and restructuring certain parts of the research, some sections of the research have been rearranged. The sections that have been rearranged have not been highlighted in yellow.

 

Reviewer 1 comments

Comment 1:

1. This study is an interesting investigation into the possibilities of using urban space in a more sustainable way. It has an eminently applicable character, as the authors show the possibilities of using GIS for intra-urban spatial analyses. These analyses can be used by local authorities to develop strategies for the development and management of different areas in the city. In order for the article to be suitable for publication in a scientific journal, it should be strengthened from a methodological point of view. It lacks a clearly defined objective, research hypotheses as well as a discussion and comparison of the results obtained with similar studies in other cities. I suggest that the authors restructure the article so that its structure complies with the requirements of a scientific journal. Nevertheless, I emphasize that this study is very interesting, and worthy of publication once corrected.

Response:

Thank you for your comment.

Concerning the research aim and objective, the authors have added a paragraph in the abstract from lines 17 to 21 on page 1. Regarding the research hypothesis, we added on page 4, line 175-177 “It is from this background that the researchers questioned the interrelations between the impact of different urban morphologies on walkability, hypothesizing that different types of morphologies will affect whether or not an area is deemed walkable.”

Additionally, a discussion and comparison of the results obtained with similar studies in other cities on pages 21-22 from lines 825-911.

As per your request for rearranging and restructuring certain parts of the research, some sections of the research have been rearranged. The sections that have been rearranged have not been highlighted in yellow. We also have separated the “Results and Discussion” section into two separate subsections, each emphasizing different aspects of the analysis. Subsection (5. Results) on page 13, Line 478-750 and subsection (6. Discussion) on page 19, Line 751-911.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

The study selected four different morphological districts in the city center of Alexandria, Egypt, and utilized GIS platforms and multiple data sources to explore the correlation between urban morphology and walkability indices. The clear presentation of multiscale analysis results demonstrates significant variations in 12 indicators among different neighborhoods. The study findings can assist urban planners in formulating targeted urban intervention measures to improve pedestrian environments. 

Overall, the article exhibits a clear structure, and the author demonstrates professionalism and rigor in data processing. However, there are still some shortcomings:

Abstract: 

There is a noted inconsistency in the presentation of the research objectives (Line 17, Line 21-22). The abstract should provide a clear and consolidated statement of the research questions rather than scattering them. This will enhance clarity and focus right from the beginning of the document.

 

Introduction: 

The introduction predominantly focuses on walkability with less emphasis on urban morphology (General comment on introduction). It would benefit from a more balanced discussion that equally emphasizes the connection between urban morphology and walkability. Clarification and expansion on the research significance are also needed to better set the stage for the study.

 

Literature Review: 

While the review details walkability assessment criteria, it lacks sufficient discussion on the interaction between urban morphology and walkability (Literature Review Comment). It is recommended to enhance this section by integrating more studies that focus specifically on how urban form influences walkability (Suggested addition to Literature Review Section 2.3 and 2.4).

 

Study Area: 

The choice of the old city district as the study area is noted, but it may overlook the effects of modern urban planning concepts on walkability (Page 6, Line 205-207). Expanding the study areas to include regions with contemporary urban designs could provide a more comprehensive analysis.

 

Materials and Methods: 

The justification for the selection of a 300x300 grid size is lacking (Page 9, Line 284-286). More detailed reasoning and citations are necessary to support this methodological choice.

The assumption about land use mix needing an equal balance is stated without sufficient support (Page 10, Line 346-348). This should be validated or discussed further to clarify its basis.

 

Results and Discussion: 

The use of a 300x300 grid size is causing significant issues in data representation, especially at the edges of the study area (Result and Discussion Comment). It may be worthwhile to consider a smaller grid size or adjust the methodology to prevent such distortions.

The categorization of residential streets and their functionalities in old city areas needs more precise definition and explanation (Page 16, Line 630-633). Additional textual explanations should be provided to clarify areas marked with a residential density of zero.

 

General Comments: 

There are typographical errors (e.g., "Spatial-Muli" should likely be "Spatial-Multi" - Page 4, Line 235) and potential errors in data interpretation due to unaddressed correlations between indicators (General Methodological Comments). Further exploration of the interactions among different indicators and a more rigorous discussion on the methodology's limitations, particularly in terms of indicator weighting, are crucial for enhancing the study's credibility and relevance.

 

 

Author Response

Dear Esteemed Reviewer,

 

Thank you so much for your insightful and additive comments. Below are our responses to them, we hope you find them satisfying.

 

General Note:

According to the reviewers' requests for rearranging and restructuring certain parts of the research, some sections of the research have been rearranged. The sections that have been rearranged have not been highlighted in yellow.

 

Reviewer 2 comments

Comment 1:

1. Abstract: There is a noted inconsistency in the presentation of the research objectives (Line 17, Line 21-22). The abstract should provide a clear and consolidated statement of the research questions rather than scattering them. This will enhance clarity and focus right from the beginning of the document.

Response:

Thank you for your comment.

As requested, we clearly stated the central research question. Thus, we added this paragraph (from line 15 to17): “In this vein, the main research question is how do different neighborhood urban morphologies impact the level of walkability in urban environments, and what are the essential elements impacting the walkability index?”

 

Comment 2:

2. Introduction: The introduction predominantly focuses on walkability with less emphasis on urban morphology (General comment on introduction). It would benefit from a more balanced discussion that equally emphasizes the connection between urban morphology and walkability. Clarification and expansion on the research significance are also needed to better set the stage for the study.

Response:

Thank you for your comment.

We added a paragraph (from lines 66 to 78) that provides a balanced discussion highlighting the connection between urban morphology and walkability. This paragraph also clarifies the significance of the research:

“However, many factors affect willingness and perception of walkability, including but not limited to the factors pertaining to urban form and morphology. These factors include street densities, connectivity density, and residential densities amongst others, other factors include adequate areas to walk, width and quality of sidewalks, presence of services, and social interactions, taking into consideration the previous, the current research will focus on walking and assessing essential elements for evaluating the level of walkability of an urban environment while investigating if neighbourhood urban morphologies impact walkability or not. The novelty of this research lies in the fact that not many researchers have explored the link between both walkability and urban morphology, and thus will try to diminish the gap present in the current literature, as well as aid stakeholders and decision makers in making informed academic based decisions regarding enhancing walkability in neighborhoods and ultimately cities to improve quality of life.”

We have also rearranged this section to better address the interlinkage between the parameters affecting walkability and that of urban morphology.

Comment 3:

3. Literature Review: While the review details walkability assessment criteria, it lacks sufficient discussion on the interaction between urban morphology and walkability (Literature Review Comment). It is recommended to enhance this section by integrating more studies that focus specifically on how urban form influences walkability (Suggested addition to Literature Review Section 2.3 and 2.4).

Response:

Thank you for your comment.

We added a paragraph (from lines 130-144) supported by references as follows:

“ According to literature, sustainable, livable, and walkable cities have become essential for enhancing the quality of life, especially given the constant increase in vehicle dominance, air pollution, dense traffic, and urban sprawl in cities. Walking is healthy, free of pollutants, and a less noisy mode of transportation, that also promotes and enhances social interaction and cohesion. The criteria that define and impact walkability are numerous and many studies have focused upon them, for instance, Visvizi et al. delved into walkability as a utility that may provide economic value[18], while others discussed the indicators that affect user perception [19]–[21], another study emphasized the factors that affect walkability to include building placement, street design, and land use[22], not to mention the one that focused on the spatial configurations that influence walkability [23]. These previous parameters, while heavily inter-linked with walkability, are also within the parameters of urban morphology. It is from this backdrop that the researchers aimed to understand the link between these two urban fields of study. Coupled with all the above, many have focused on the crucial duality that arises from linking sustainability measures to walkability.”

The authors also added a paragraph to Literature Review Section 2.4. for Intertwining factors between Walkability and Urban morphology on page 4, lines from 178-234

Comment 4:

4. Study Area: The choice of the old city district as the study area is noted, but it may overlook the effects of modern urban planning concepts on walkability (Page 6, Line 205-207). Expanding the study areas to include regions with contemporary urban designs could provide a more comprehensive analysis.

Response:

Thank you for your comment.

We have rephrased this section to convey the true meaning of the issue.

 

Comment 5:

5. Materials and Methods: The justification for the selection of a 300x300 grid size is lacking (Page 9, Line 284-286). More detailed reasoning and citations are necessary to support this methodological choice. The assumption about land use mix needing an equal balance is stated without sufficient support (Page 10, Line 346-348). This should be validated or discussed further to clarify its basis.

Response:

Thank you for your comment.

The justification for the selection of a 300x300 grid size is clarified on (Page 9, Line 312-317) and (Lines 326-336). The assumption regarding the need for an equal balance in land use mix has been clarified by adding the reference on which the authors relied on (Line 399).

 

Comment 6:

6. Results and Discussion: The use of a 300x300 grid size is causing significant issues in data representation, especially at the edges of the study area (Result and Discussion Comment). It may be worthwhile to consider a smaller grid size or adjust the methodology to prevent such distortions. The categorization of residential streets and their functionalities in old city areas needs more precise definition and explanation (Page 16, Line 630-633). Additional textual explanations should be provided to clarify areas marked with a residential density of zero.

Response:

Thank you for your comment.

Technically, we calculated the indicators on a grid covering larger areas than the specific study areas. We then extracted the study areas from the raster files obtained through various operations. As a result, the edge pixels contain the values of the pixels overlapping between the study area and the surrounding area. Additionally, we only used the spatial unit area (cells) to calculate the (BCR, FAR, level of mixed use, and land use mixedness) indicators. The other indicators were calculated using Point and Line Density tools using extracted pixels spatial unit of 300m*300m, and then we clipped the study area from the output rasters. Therefore, the effect of the actual area of the cells is weak to the general walkability index. It was found that the area of the cells has a weak effect on the walkability index value, as indicated by the Pearson correlation coefficient between the cell area and its walkability index value, which was calculated to be -0.05, signifying a very weak relation.

Concerning street categorization, a line has been added on page 6, line 186: "Additional measures such as street configurations [37]," which clarifies the street categorization and the reference the authors relied on.

Regarding the zero-value found in one of the densities, the only density with the zero value is found at the transit and commercial density. FAR and BCR are holding value of 0.001 and 0.007 respectively.

Comment 7:

7. General Comments: There are typographical errors (e.g., "Spatial-Muli" should likely be "Spatial-Multi" - Page 4, Line 235) and potential errors in data interpretation due to unaddressed correlations between indicators (General Methodological Comments). Further exploration of the interactions among different indicators and a more rigorous discussion on the methodology's limitations, particularly in terms of indicator weighting, are crucial for enhancing the study's credibility and relevance.

Response:

Thank you for your comment.

First, we have corrected the typographical errors in the document. Second, we have included table 6 on (page 21, line 782) that presents the correlations between each indicator and the rest of the indicators. We also added the interpretation of these correlations on pages 21 and 22 (Lines from 828-911). Third, in terms of indicator weighting, this concern is answered through two parts:

• The first part by adding a new section (3.3.3. Assign weights to indicators) on page 11, Lines from 413-422
• The second part is emphasized on page 11, Line from 430-433. We stated that “Concerning the weights of the adopted indicators, the researchers had to assign equal weights for the current study as it matches the scope of the research. The authors will work on conducting a questionnaire for these study areas for further assessment.”

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors evaluate four different neighborhoods in the case city to investigate the impact of urban morphologies on walkability, with indicators identified, mapped and aggregated based on empirical research. The case study and indicators analysis are well-grounded. Some advices for further improvement are as follows.

Abstract: Statement is a bit general, without specific quantitative results and findings. 

Structure: Refine the whole stuff in a more scientific way. Methods and Materials part should be set after the intro and literature review. Then followed by case area expression, as an illustrative example. Please clarify the why the chosen city should be a typical case. What is the reference value for other places. More details should be added for the case consideration and assumptions 

Introduction: Clarify the novelty of this paper and the end of introduction part. State the main research recap and gap for the literature review. Add a schematic diagram of the whole research structure if possible.

Results and Discussion: re-organize the results in separate subsections with different analysis emphasis.  Compare the indicators with other similar studies or benchmarks on walkability assessment worldwide. 

Conclusions: list main findings into several short bullets, avoid repeating specific results, focusing on responses to the research objective and questions mentioned in the introduction. Put 5.1 limitations after the main finding, and arise some topics for future studies.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear Esteemed Reviewer,

Thank you so much for your insightful and additive comments. Below are our responses to them, we hope you find them satisfying.

 

General Note:

According to the reviewers' requests for rearranging and restructuring certain parts of the research, some sections of the research have been rearranged. The sections that have been rearranged have not been highlighted in yellow.

 

Reviewer 3 comments

Comment 1:

1. Abstract: Statement is a bit general, without specific quantitative results and findings.

Response:

Thank you for your comment.

As requested, we added this paragraph (from line 24 to29) that includes specific quantitative results and findings: “The results showed that the aggregated index showed that the highest walkability index was that of the gridiron morphology, followed by the linear morphology and the radial and organic morphologies coming in last respectively. The composite index values were (0.364, 0.247, 0.232, 0.225) respectively, the reason behind this is mainly in the presence of the commercial density, intersection density and connectivity as well as the service density and the distance to services.”

 

Comment 2:

2. Structure: Refine the whole stuff in a more scientific way. Methods and Materials part should be set after the intro and literature review. Then followed by case area expression, as an illustrative example. Please clarify why the chosen city should be a typical case. What is the reference value for other places. More details should be added for the case consideration and assumptions.

Response:

Thank you for your comment.

We have rearranged the sections as per your instructions. The “Methods and Materials” part is now placed after the introduction and literature review, followed by the “Case Area”. Additionally, we addressed the concern on page 11 (lines 443-447) by adding a paragraph that explains why the chosen city is considered a typical case as follows

“The city of Alexandria was chosen due to it being the only Cosmopolitan city in Egypt, full of diverse cultures and ethnic profiles. It is an added value in research due to its massive and diverse backgrounds, as well as its being a multi-layered city that has absorbed civilizations across the ages and in turn, may act as a model for other areas whether old or new.”

 

Comment 3:

3. Introduction: Clarify the novelty of this paper and the end of introduction part. State the main research recap and gap for the literature review. Add a schematic diagram of the whole research structure if possible.

Response:

Thank you for your comment.

We added a paragraph (from lines 66 to 78) that provides the main research recap and gap for the literature review. This paragraph also clarifies the novelty of the research:

“However, many factors affect willingness and perception of walkability, including but not limited to the factors pertaining to urban form and morphology. These factors include street densities, connectivity density, and residential densities amongst others, other factors include adequate areas to walk, width and quality of sidewalks, presence of services, and social interactions, taking into consideration the previous, the current research will focus on walking and assessing essential elements for evaluating the level of walkability of an urban environment while investigating if neighbourhood urban morphologies impact walkability or not. The novelty of this research lies in the fact that not many researchers have explored the link between both walkability and urban morphology, and thus will try to diminish the gap present in the current literature, as well as aid stakeholders and decision makers in making informed academic based decisions regarding enhancing walkability in neighborhoods and ultimately cities to improve quality of life.”

Additionally, we have added a schematic diagram illustrating the overall research structure as requested at the end of the introduction part on page 2, Figure 1 (lines from 84 to99).

Comment 4:

4. Results and Discussion: re-organize the results in separate subsections with different analysis emphasis. Compare the indicators with other similar studies or benchmarks on walkability assessment worldwide.

Response:

Thank you for your comment.

First, we have separated the “Results and Discussion” section into two separate subsections, each emphasizing different aspects of the analysis. Subsection (5. Results) on page 13, Line 478-750 and subsection (6. Discussion) on page 19, Line 751-911

Second, we have included table 6 on (page 21, line 782) that presents the correlations between each indicator and the rest of the indicators. We also added the interpretation of these correlations on pages 21 and 22 (Lines from 828-911) and compared the indicators with other similar studies.

 

Comment 5:

5. Conclusions: list main findings into several short bullets, avoid repeating specific results, focusing on responses to the research objective and questions mentioned in the introduction. Put 5.1 limitations after the main finding and arise some topics for future studies.

Response:

Thank you for your comment.

We listed the main findings in the conclusion, paragraph on page 23, lines 922-934, which also address the answer to the research questions and objectives.

Additionally, we have combined the limitations into the conclusion section after the main findings and also added some topics for future studies.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Your improvements made article more clear and interesting for readers.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed most of the concerns raised in the previous review report, and I find the revised manuscript to be satisfactory.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors have addressed revision issues accordingly

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required