Exploring Dynamic Street Vendors and Pedestrians through the Lens of Static Spatial Configuration in Yuncheng, China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The present article investigates the heterogeneous relationship between pedestrians, street vendors and the urban and suburban places they inhabit in Yuncheng by contrasting two kinds of pedestrian-driven maps.
Overall, the article is well developed and includes relevant information.
Introduction
This section is well sustained by international references. However, please pay more attention on how the references are introduced in the text since not all of them are respecting MDPI rules.
Materials and Methods
How were developed the formulas from sub-section 2.4? Which is the scientific basis?
In addition, concepts like Integration, Choice and Combined Centrality should be better explained/ described.
The results are not clearly presented and not in an attractive way.
Since the study was focused on only 1 city, which is its relevance at national and international level? The number of questionnaires is also relatively low.
Which is the practical applicability of your study?
The novelty of the approach used in this article is not sufficiently explained. In addition, it should be joined by practical suggestions for policy-making and urban design.
Author Response
Reviewer #1
The present article investigates the heterogeneous relationship between pedestrians, street vendors and the urban and suburban places they inhabit in Yuncheng by contrasting two kinds of pedestrian-driven maps.
Overall, the article is well developed and includes relevant information.
Thanks for your kind encouragement.
Introduction
This section is well sustained by international references. However, please pay more attention on how the references are introduced in the text since not all of them are respecting MDPI rules.
Thank you. We have thoroughly revised the reference format in the whole paper.
Materials and Methods
How were developed the formulas from sub-section 2.4? Which is the scientific basis?
Thanks for this suggestion. We have added two references for the formulas (lines 599-601).
In addition, concepts like Integration, Choice and Combined Centrality should be better explained/ described.
Thanks, we have explained the concepts (lines 315-327).
The results are not clearly presented and not in an attractive way.
Thank you. We have added a figure and revised some sentences in order to make the results more attractive.
Since the study was focused on only 1 city, which is its relevance at national and international level?
Thank you for this comment. We have noted that “this study has only focused on one city, and more subtle distinctions need to be further studied in more specific places within different cities” in the limitation (lines 1187-1188). Moreover, based on the concept of the street vending economy, we added some practical suggestions for Chinese cities (lines 825-828).
The number of questionnaires is also relatively low.
In this study, we only used on-site observations and semi-structured interviews.
Which is the practical applicability of your study? In addition, it should be joined by practical suggestions for policy-making and urban design.
Thanks for the suggestion. We have added practical suggestions for policy-making urban design in the sections of discussion and conclusion.
The novelty of the approach used in this article is not sufficiently explained.
Thank you. We noted the approach novelty in the subtitles of the discussion section, such as “Traditional measurements but novel meanings”, “Alternative understanding of scales”, and “A new paradox at two specific sites”. We also added a sentence, “…the space syntax approach needs to be supplemented with qualitative engagements in different situations and local contexts in real-life terms, and this complementary method can be used in policy-making and urban design in order to improve adaptability and suitability of a context-specific neighbourhood” (lines 1168-1171).
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript "Exploring dynamic street vendors and pedestrians through the lens of static spatial configuration in Yuncheng, China" proposes to investigate the relationship between pedestrians, street vendors and the urban places (as said by authors). I do recommend to publish the paper as is. The scientific question is well established, the experimental design is very good and the results are clear. English style is excellent.
As 2 very minor suggestions I'd like to point the following:
- The Photos after Table 1: are they part of the table? There is no dedicated numbered caption for the photos.
- Further in Table 1: I suggest a less "MSWord default" borders for the table. There are better layouts, publication quality borders and designs for tables.
- Figure 3: the color pallete is not good for people with color blindness. However, all the nine markers are different, so I would keep them as is.
- Line 275: "Figure S1 illustrates..." I could not access supplementary material in the MDPI homepage were I downloaded the manuscript. Anyway, I have seem as a common habit in many submitted manuscript to put important figures in SM, even those significant to the discussion of results and conclusions, which is not always a good practice. Suggestion: as the first cited figure in the text, move it to the main body text instead of SM.
- Conclusion: this is the weakness of this manuscript. I think that authors could provide a richer conclusion. The manuscript presented a rich dataset, an excellent explanation of the problem, but for the policy maker a good conclusion is essential.
- The same argument is valid for the abstract. I missed a good final sentence with the "message" of the paper.
Author Response
Reviewer #2
The manuscript "Exploring dynamic street vendors and pedestrians through the lens of static spatial configuration in Yuncheng, China" proposes to investigate the relationship between pedestrians, street vendors and the urban places (as said by authors). I do recommend to publish the paper as is. The scientific question is well established, the experimental design is very good and the results are clear. English style is excellent.
Thank you very much for your kind encouragement.
As 2 very minor suggestions I'd like to point the following:
The Photos after Table 1: are they part of the table? There is no dedicated numbered caption for the photos.
Yes, they are one table. We have changed the table position and added few words to describe the photos.
- Further in Table 1: I suggest a less "MSWord default" borders for the table. There are better layouts, publication quality borders and designs for tables.
Thank you for this practical comment. We have edited the table format.
- Figure 3: the color pallete is not good for people with color blindness. However, all the nine markers are different, so I would keep them as is.
Thanks for the suggestion. We noticed the colour blindness issue and will pay attention on our following studies.
- Line 275: "Figure S1 illustrates..." I could not access supplementary material in the MDPI homepage were I downloaded the manuscript. Anyway, I have seem as a common habit in many submitted manuscript to put important figures in SM, even those significant to the discussion of results and conclusions, which is not always a good practice. Suggestion: as the first cited figure in the text, move it to the main body text instead of SM.
Thank you for this practical suggestion. We have moved Figure S1 to the main body (lines 711-713) and revised the order for the following figures.
- Conclusion: this is the weakness of this manuscript. I think that authors could provide a richer conclusion. The manuscript presented a rich dataset, an excellent explanation of the problem, but for the policy maker a good conclusion is essential.
Thank you and we agree. We have summarised the key findings in the conclusion (lines 1188-1197) as well as noted detailed suggestions for the policy makers in the discussion.
- The same argument is valid for the abstract. I missed a good final sentence with the "message" of the paper.
Thank you for the comment. We have revised the abstract.
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper is interesting, relevant and well-written.
Just a few minor remarks:
A proofreading by the Authors and a minor spell check would be required to eliminate some typos.
Would it be possible to identify site 18R and 25 R on the supplementary figures?
Author Response
Reviewer #3
The paper is interesting, relevant and well-written.
Many thanks for your kind encouragement.
Just a few minor remarks:
A proofreading by the Authors and a minor spell check would be required to eliminate some typos.
Thank you, two of our co-authors who are native speakers have carefully checked this article.
Would it be possible to identify site 18R and 25 R on the supplementary figures?
We have identified Sites 18R and 25R on the supplementary figures.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors provided satisfactory and relevant answers to the questions from the first review.
I don't have any other comments.
The article can be accepted in the present form.
