Comparing Human Activity Density and Green Space Supply Using the Baidu Heat Map in Zhengzhou, China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors, 

Your research paper is very interesting and constructive as far as the research of the urban space based on Big Data is concerned.

Nevertheless, I would like to stress your attention to some minor remarks that on my opinion would give a better form to your manuscript and would make it more attractive to the readers. These remarks are rather of technical order, e.g I would recommend a better title including the Big data issue as well as a restructuring of the Conclusions with further analysis of Recommendations and more extensive reference to further research needed.  

I attach a file with comments and think that your paper deserves publication after these minor revisions.

I hope that these comments of mine will be of help. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper entitled “Comparing human activity density and green space supply using the Baidu Heat-Map in Zhengzhou, China” presents an assessment of the utilization of green spaces with tracking mobile devices while improving knowledge and urban design towards a more sustainable green area fruition.

This paper deals with an important field of research and tries to use big data to analyse the spatiotemporal utilization of urban facilities.

Although I think this work is promising, the general impression is that the authors didn’t pay too much attention in carefully write this work, underestimating 1) the English logic and grammar sentencing; 2) the detailed explanation of the methodology and 3) the policy implications.

To what concern the first point: see that it is required a professional work of diffuse re-sentencing (I am not talking of substituting some words or avoid repetitions), you need to study the author’s guidelines to see how to format the text, to put adequate separations, spacing formulas etc.

To what concerns the second point: your methodology is odd to read and difficult to comprehend even if your work is quite banal: you create a map of green space and you create a map of the user, then you make an overlay analysis… but 1) you green space classification is confused and you don’t provide sufficient data on you image classification (accuracy, minimum detected area, geometrical precision etc…) 2) you talk of mobile device tacking than you talk of thermal images (what?) then you say you converted your pixel values (of what? How many pixels you have? Can you provide information min, max st.dev etc of your database?) into users but you never presented the absolute number of users into your green areas… then you used the area… but why the area!

So, in the end, it is impossible to understand clearly your methodology since you don’t’ properly describe all passages.

To what concern the third point: you simply bypassed the need to provide policy implications of this study in your discussion (which is not repeating introductory statements).

See my detailed comments in the attached file.

Good work!

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I see that the authors worked here and there to correct major mistakes of the original manuscript.

Now the paper is better described, particularly in ints methodological part.

I still see some statistical mistakes that need changes.

To what concern the contents, my doubts regards the discussion, which is too much linked with the description of results, while normally this section takes the results and goes ahead with an interpretation. In this case the authors have to provide a spatial map of Heat hotspot and describe hotspots referring them to the morphology of the city: how the land use, the centrality, the proximity with residential or commercial uses affect the fruition of urban green areas... otherwise this manuscript remains too poor in the policy implementation and suggestions...

See my detailed comments in the file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

I have two points to reccomend:

1) correct minor mistakes of the text but please provide an extended english correction of the manuscript (style and grammar)

2) you policy implications are too poor for this kind of work.

You can find detaile dcomments in the file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx