Quantitative Analysis of Spatial Heterogeneity and Driving Forces of the Urban Spatial Structure’s Development Level Based on Multi-Source Big Data: A Case Study of Beijing, China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

There is no doubt that you have conducted a meaningful study on the spatial heterogeneity and driving forces of urban spatial structure development level. However, there are some weaknesses that require accurate inspection and review.

(1) At the end of the introduction, it is necessary to emphasize the research significance of the article. In addition, the introduction should clarify the innovative points of the article.

(2) There are some format problems that need to be carefully checked by the author. For example, the longitude and latitude symbols on line 133 need to be corrected; there is a problem with the font of 4.1; 3.2 should be the spatial differentiation pattern of the development level of urban spatial structure......

(3) 2.1 Study area----The importance of choosing to study Beijing's urban spatial structure is reflected in?

(4) The article lacks a definition or description of the evaluation factors for the development level of urban spatial structure, that is, how to construct an evaluation system for urban spatial structure; Why choose urban function, population density, and economic activity intensity for evaluation?

(5) How can Figure 5a reflect the proportion of the largest low development area?

(6) Should 3.3 be changed to population density or population spatial distribution?

(7) The discussion section should strengthen the discussion on the spatial structure and influencing factors of urban differentiation in different regions, such as the impact of urban functions on urban spatial structure.

(8) References should be corrected in standard format.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Using different datasets (POI, population, raster night lights), the authors compare urban functions and Beijing's Urban Master Plan (2016-2035). This is an interesting paper, well-presented, including several insights into the intra-cities urban structure. The methodology is clear and sets a useful framework to replicate this study. Although it uses several datasets, the methodology is clear, and the conclusions are based on the presented results. I enjoyed reading this manuscript, so I have no reservations about recommending it for publication with minor corrections. 

Minor comments

1. I'd like to see more references for night light research. This section feels a bit in terms of Literature review.

2. There is insufficient information about the Autonavi Open Platform Interface (where and how I can get the data).

3. Figure 3 would work better as a HeatMap or something similar, showing densities.

4. Figure 4 is confusing and low quality and, in my view, doesn't add any useful information but distracts the attention from the main point. I'd suggest removing it completely. 

Some sections need to be proof reading again. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

I think it is an interesting article that offers great potential to advance in this line with innovative solutions applicable to real situations.

However, there are some questions that the authors could do to improve this manuscript. I make a few points in the specific suggestions that follow in attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx