The Hidden Characteristics of Land-Use Mix Indices: An Overview and Validity Analysis Based on the Land Use in Melbourne, Australia
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
The paper entitled “The hidden characteristics of land-use mix indices: An overview and validity analysis based on the land use in Melbourne, Australia“ aims to identify the potential characteristics of land-use mix indices using a three step screening method.
The authors indicate that the land-use mix index is a way to quantify the mixture of land use pattern. Due to practical limitations, few studies have highlighted the validity of land-use mix indices. The study makes uses of a three-step screening method with the randomized controlled trial (RCT) to test the data precision level of indices, identify the hidden sides and validity of indices, and conclude with general recommendations relating to the indices. The data for the RCT study includes a balance of mixture of land use from virtual blocks and land use information of blocks in the City of Melbourne’s Central Business District from the 2018 Census of Land Use and Employment (CLUE).
The validities in this study were the diversity, balance of residential and non-residential land, and job-housing balance.
The authors designed the three-step screening method to explore the potential characteristics of land-use mix indices. In this study, the authors also conducted and updated the review of land-use mix research from both theoretical and quantitative aspects.
The study consists of three stages:
First Screening: Screening conditions: Research Scale, Data precision
Second Screening: Spatial feature, Land use classification
Third Screening: Diversity, Evenness, and Balance
Results: Features and hidden sides
First of all, I want to mention, that the use of research flows of land-use relevant studies as well as the conducted Methodology are very original and interesting. Furthermore, this research project is characterized by a strong and topical contribution with a thorough analytical and institutional analysis.
After reading the paper, I have comments and suggestions to improve the paper as follows:
[69] In the 2nd Chapter of the paper Literature Review, I propose a detailed explanation and description of Fig. 1 “Land-use mix related theories”. The authors devoted too little space to describe the knowledge base underpinning landscape structure and land-use mix design, which has been a crucial element in planning philosophies and design principles from 1973 to 2005. The following “planning theories” in Fig. 1 are only generally mentioned by the authors, but it is not described what they consisted of. A developed explanation of the individual elements will enrich the article in terms of research and didactics for the reader / recipient.
The paper consists of a lot Figures, but they are no links to the Figures in the text.
e.g: “For example, the mix-use design is the major component in the compact city [8,9], eco-city [9], cycling-friendly city [11], and car-free city [12,13]. It has been a critical component in urban planning philosophies such 66 as new urbanism [14], sustainable development [15], transit-oriented development (TOD) [16], smart growth [17], and walkable urbanism [18] (See Fig. 1).”
[113] wrong numeration, the authors wrote again Figure 1 instead of Figure 2
[258] wrong numeration, the authors wrote Figure 2, it should be Figure 6
[260] wrong numeration, the authors wrote Figure 3, it should be Figure 7
The Results were presented and described in a very good manner and are very interesting. They contribute to the high value of this paper. No changes are required.
In the Discussion Section, the authors should discuss and explain the findings and results of the paper more. It also important to describe the results of the paper in greater detail in this section. This would contribute to a high improvement of this paper.
Furthermore, I strongly recommend, to revise and check the language, grammar and spelling in the paper.
All in all, I strongly recommend this paper for publication in the Journal “Sustainability” after minor changes.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thanks for the very constructive comments. Please check the revision version of the paper. In this version, several details were updated, which includes:
Point 1: In the 2nd Chapter of the paper Literature Review, I propose a detailed explanation and description of Fig. 1 “Land-use mix related theories”. The authors devoted too little space to describe the knowledge base underpinning landscape structure and land-use mix design, which has been a crucial element in planning philosophies and design principles from 1973 to 2005. The following “planning theories” in Fig. 1 are only generally mentioned by the authors, but it is not described what they consisted of. A developed explanation of the individual elements will enrich the article in terms of research and didactics for the reader/recipient.
Respond 1:More elements of urban planning theories were added in the Figure1. The details of year, key elements show the connection and the difference of theories. Please check the document in the following lines:
[61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [69], [72], [73], [82], [83], [88], [95], [102], [106], [107], [108], [110], [111], [115], [117], [118], [119]
Point 2:The paper consists of a lot Figures, but they are no links to the Figures in the text.
Respond 2: the links to the figures and tables were updated, please check the document.
Point 3:In the Discussion Section, the authors should discuss and explain the findings and results of the paper more. It also important to describe the results of the paper in greater detail in this section. This would contribute to a high improvement of this paper.
Respond 3:More information in the section of Findings and Discussion was updated. please see the document and check line:
[321], [323], [335], [364], [366], [369], [370], [371], [373], [375], [376], [377], [378], [381], [382], [383], [384], [385], [386], [387], [388], [390], [392], [397], [401], [404], [411], [432], [433], [434]
Point 4: I strongly recommend, to revise and check the language, grammar and spelling
Respond 4: The minor changes in spelling and grammar were checked.
Thanks for the comments and all the best,
Author
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This is a very good study and its documentation is very informative, as well as useful. With the many varying indices available, it is significant to analytically compare and rate. The methods seem sound and its outcomes are substantiated. Future analysis should compare across contexts to test variability and multi-scale applications. Future index comparisons should include additional sustainability, ecological service systems resources, environmental impacts, as well as socio-cultural and qualitative interfacing, as these are co-effectual and inter-operational. For future studies, these might also lead to best practices and merged indexes (strong common sets) leading toward desired performance outcomes during planning and design stages. For conclusions, how might we incorporate these for holistic approaches, to best inform applications and decision-making?
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thanks for the very constructive comments. Please check the revision version of the paper. In this version, several details were updated, which includes:
Point 1:we make some changes in the Section of Conclusion and General Recommendations:
Responds 1: Please see the documents in the following lines: [439], [441], [443], [444], [452], [462], [465], [477], [478], [479], [480], [482], [484], [485] and [488] to [497].
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors
I argue that the control group 217 123 blocks from Melbourne's Central Business District should be detailed and catalogued to a greater and more precise degree and data (in point 3.3.). Only then should the obtained results be compared with the indicators from this group. Theoretical considerations and collisions of theoretical models do not concern the essence of the problem of urban research.
Best regards
reviewer
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thanks for the very constructive comments. Please check the revision version of the paper. In this version, several details were updated, which includes:
point 1:the control group 217 123 blocks from Melbourne's Central Business District should be detailed and catalogued to a greater and more precise degree and data (in point 3.3.).
Improvement: Due to space limitations, the sources of land use details of 213 blocks are listed below Figure 6. Please check line [266] to [267]. Also, some minor changed in the following lines.
Please check line: [270], [274], [277], [279], [280], [281], [283], [286], [300].
Best wishes
Author
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
