Heterogeneity Study of the Visual Features Based on Geographically Weighted Principal Components Analysis Applied to an Urban Community

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and suggestions to authors:

a) My first suggestion looks the paper title. I propose to the authors a new formulation of the title: Heterogeneity Study of the Visual Features Based on Geographically Weighted Principal Components Analysis applied to an urban community. Such a title becomes much more attractive to the reader and better conveys the message of the authors.

b) The abstract should be revised! Surely, the visual features of community not „directly affect the living quality”, but „directly reflect the local living quality and influence the perception of residents” and visitors. The fourth phrase is too long and encompasses a diverse contents. The next phrase has redundant groups of words. Practically, please, justify the importance of GWPCA in such analysis, the results obtained by testing this method, and why the scientists would be interested in reading this potential article.

c) The Introduction can be accepted, revising the English.

d) The next section should be fundamentally restructured. First of all, please, divide it in two distinct sections: one focused on Literature review and another on The Literature section is built around three main targets: street image, recognition of visual feature of community and geographically weighted principal component analysis, citing different authors, but especially Chinese scholars.  I propose to eliminate the sub-chapters, because, usually, this section does not have sub-divisions, and the last one is found with the same title in the next section.

e) The new section regarding the Methodology of paper is strongly required. This section can group the followings:

• Study area – a short description, including the map (partially 3.1, and figures 2);
• Data sources – just the main sources and data collection (partially 3.1);
• Main research methods (2.2.1 and 2.2.2)

I agree the contents of these sub-chapters, which give enough elements to reader for a better understanding of the methodological issues.

f) Results and discussion section should include the current Chapter 3. Analysis of multi-scale community visual features, excepting the subchapter 3.1. I suggest keeping together Results and discussion area, because during the results presentation the authors make the discussion too. So this means that this section will have two subchapters: Results, grouping the current 3.2. and 3.3., and Discussion, which replaces the existing Discussion of analysis results. Generally, I agree how the authors have applied the methodology and the obtained results.

g) The content of the current Results section seems to be focused more on the concluding ideas. In this case I propose to be replaced by Conclusions, following to be improved by new elements regarding the limitations of the study and the main strengths to be considered as a model for the further research in the field.

 Please, revise the English because, frequently, there are some difficulties for a correct understanding of ideas, and I have observed, at the same time, many small mistakes (redundant elements, researches instead of research, geographical instead of geographically weighted….).

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Reading the article there is an impression of two separate concepts community visual features and landscape aesthetics. The aim and scope of the research should be made clearly visible. 

The research methods used and the source data adopted are correct. The research methodology is understandable. There is a lack of information about the timeliness of the acquired data (it is known, for example, that the street view data made available are with a long delay), and how does this relate to other data sources?

Other comments:

In lines 165-166, provide reference literature

Delete lines 199-201

Delete lines 393-396

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper was strongly improved! I agree the changes, and this current form.