A Multi-Dimensional Clustering Applied to Classify the Typology of Urban Public Parks in Bangkok Metropolitan Area, Thailand
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript is so badly written that I cannot comment on its originality, contribution to scholarship, etc. It needs to be rewritten by a native English speaker. For example, in the abstract alone, the following sentences make no sense:
Urban public spaces promote development in terms of social, economic, and environmental to any city where should lead to sustainable urban development.
They are an indicator for implying an urban feature, a direction of urban sprawling, and surrounding contexts in the case of city planning.
At a place or district level, urban public parks identify the characteristics of
the areas and districts. And in user or using level, they represent groups of users and roles of public space and provide social interaction among their users.
A good public park reflects the diversity and encourages people to live together effortlessly, creating the necessary conditions for permanence, which invites people to be in the urban space.
And so on ...
Author Response
Thank you for this helpful suggestion. We have decided to use the MDPI editing services and all wrong sentences have been edited and checked by a native English-speaking colleague. Please see the manuscript files, edits are shown as tracked changes (English Editing ID: english-34149).
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Even if the paper addresses an interesting topic, there are some issues that need to be strengthened on the paper prior to publication.
Literature review misses several seminal works and important advances crossing public space analysis and assessment. Read for example (Burley et. al., Loures et al., or Panagopoulos, regarding this subject).
Material and methods are hard to understand because the research steps are not adequately described. I would recommend the introduction of an explicit phased methodological diagram.
Conclusions need to be more scientific. As they are they highlight the limitations of the research.
Author Response
|
Literature review misses several seminal works and important advances crossing public space analysis and assessment. Read for example (Burley et. al., Loures et al., or Panagopoulos, regarding this subject). |
Thank you for this helpful suggestion. We have cited the references in this research. Please see the reference list (No. 6 and 15), include;
1. Loures, L., Santos, R., Panagopoulos, T. (2007). Urban parks and sustainable city planning-The case of Portimão, Portugal. WSEAS Transactions on Environment and Development 3, 171-180 2. Panagopoulos, T. (2008). Using Microclimatic Lanscdape Design to Create Thermal Comfort and Energy Efficiency. Actas da 1a Conferência sobre Edifícios Eficientes,Universidade do Algarve, 25 de Janeiro, 1s (June), 1–4. |
|
Material and methods are hard to understand because the research steps are not adequately described. I would recommend the introduction of an explicit phased methodological diagram. |
We have been modified the research steps and revised a framework of this study (see Figure 2), where it in the paper, please see Section No.3 pages 4-5. |
|
Conclusions need to be more scientific. As they are they highlight the limitations of the research. |
Thank you for this valuable suggestion. We have separated the Discussion of the results from the Conclusion section. Moreover, we have modified the conclusions to be more scientific by adding consistent with the findings from previous reports in the paper. Please see pages 15-16. |
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper is interested. The authors proposed a classification of the types and characteristics of public parks in the urban area of Bangkok, based on integrated external and internal geospatial variables.
The methodological approach adopted by the authors based on the identification of internal and external variables, the identification of the factors that best characterize the 30 public parks considered on their Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and the hierarchical classification based on K-means cluster analysis produces significant results in order to pursue the objective of this study.
I suggest better paper level based on the following elements:
- introduce at the end of section 1. Introduction a brief presentation of the paper structure;
- improve the level of description of Sub-Agrafo 3.2, namely PCA and K-means cluster analysis;
- describe the scale of variables and state whether they have been normalised before the PCA
- separate the Discussion section from the Conclusion section by highlighting more clearly how the analysis proposed by the authors can support the implementation of the measures proposed by the Green Bangkok 2030 Project.
Author Response
|
Introduce at the end of section 1. Introduction a brief presentation of the paper structure; |
Thank you for this valuable suggestion. We have briefed clearly state eithers the aims and the scope of this research. Please see at the end of Introduction section pages 2. |
|
Improve the level of description of Sub-Agrafo 3.2, namely PCA and K-means cluster analysis; Describe the scale of variables and state whether they have been normalised before the PCA |
In Sub-Agrafo 3.2, we have already described that “the values for all computed variables were normalized in this research before performing the variable classification analysis”. Please see page 8. |
|
Separate the Discussion section from the Conclusion section by highlighting more clearly how the analysis proposed by the authors can support the implementation of the measures proposed by the Green Bangkok 2030 Project. |
We have separated the Discussion of the results from the Conclusion section. Moreover, we have modified the Discussion section to be highlighting more clearly how our analysis proposed by consistent with the findings from previous reports in Bangkok. These can support the implementation of the measures proposed by the Green Bangkok 2030 Project. Please see pages 15-16. |
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Despite the fact that the authors have used the MDPI English language editing service, the manuscript is still incomprehensible.
Author Response
|
Reviewer Comments and Suggestions |
Author Response |
|
Despite the fact that the authors have used the MDPI English language editing service, the manuscript is still incomprehensible. |
Thank you for this helpful suggestion. We have decided to use an English-speaker conversant generally with our subject, and incomprehensible sentences have been edited and checked. Please see the manuscript files, edits are shown as tracked changes. We hope the revised version of the manuscript is dealt with your concerns. |
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have improved the level of understanding of their paper.
The critical points noted in the first phase of the review have been removed. Now the paper can be considered acceptable for publication on Sustainability.
Author Response
|
Reviewer Comments and Suggestions |
Author Response |
|
The authors have improved the level of understanding of their paper.
The critical points noted in the first phase of the review have been removed. Now the paper can be considered acceptable for publication on Sustainability.
English language and style are fine/minor spell check required |
We have decided to use an English-speaker conversant generally with our subject, and incomprehensible English sentences and style have been edited and checked. Please see the manuscript files, edits are shown as tracked changes. We hope the revised version of the manuscript is dealt with your concerns. |
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have taken on board my comments and the manuscript is considerably improved. However, the quality of the English is still below standard and should be corrected by a native English speaker.
Author Response
|
Reviewer Comments and Suggestions |
Author Response |
|
The authors have taken on board my comments and the manuscript is considerably improved. However, the quality of the English is still below standard and should be corrected by a native English speaker. |
Thank you for this helpful suggestion. We have decided to send our manuscript back to an English-speaker conversant generally with our subject, and incomprehensible sentences have been checked and corrected. Please see the manuscript files, corrections are shown as tracked changes. We hope the revised version of the manuscript is dealt with your concerns. |
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
