The Spatial Interface of Informal Settlements to Women’s Safety: A Human-Scale Measurement for the Largest Urban Village in Changsha, Hunan Province, China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1) The Introduction does not specify the purpose of the work. The purpose appears in later sections of the paper (183-185 and 231-233), but it is not explicitly stated. In addition, at 231-233 the research hypothesis is mentioned, which is also not specified in the Introduction.
2) The description of the Case Study is very general. The location of the urban village under analysis in the spatial structure of the Changsha city is not specified. It also lacks any data about the analyzed urban village (population, area). The description of the crime rate only states "The crime rate is higher here, and theft, robbery and violence occur frequently," without providing any values for the urban village and the city as a whole.
3) The description of Research Design is also quite sketchy. There is no detailed description of the surveys that were conducted for the paper. The survey questionnaire and the questions are not described, making it difficult to understand the findings analyzed later in the paper. The structure of the respondents by gender and age is also unknown.
4) The Discussion section is rather brief and refers only to the results of the study, which were not compared with the results of studies or findings made by other authors.
Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to express our sincere gratitude for your valuable suggestions and critiques. We have carefully considered all of your recommendations and made the necessary revisions. To provide a better visual representation of the changes, please see the attachment.
Thank you once again for your support.
Sincerely,
All the authors
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
· What are the primary differences between the classifications of building façade interfaces proposed by Bobić (2004) and Gehl [44] in terms of spatial perception and criteria?
· How does the interface of the first floor of a street impact regional dynamics and activities, as highlighted by reference [50] (pp. 101-108)?
· How does the concept of permeability, sociability, and activity from Gehl's classification relate to Bobić's spatial perception-based classification of interfaces?
· Can you explain the significance of transparency, enclosure, directness, traffic modes, visibility, vitality, and distance in relation to informal settlements' interfaces?
· What are the main characteristics of impermeable, accessible, and porous interfaces as categorized by certain literature [49]?
· How do the nine safety-related IUV variables in the study relate to the three main factors of penetrability, proximity, and scale?
· Could you elaborate on the notion of "human-scale" as it pertains to the study's focus on the first floor's interface accessible to pedestrians?
· Are there any specific examples provided in the study that demonstrate the influence of the first-floor interface on regional dynamics and activities?
· What are the potential implications of the research findings on urban design and planning, particularly in relation to safety and human-scale interfaces?
· How does cross angle, sky exposure, enclosure, and continuity individually affect women's sense of security according to the regression coefficients?
· What does the positive relationship between most independent variables and safety perception signify, and why is it important in the context of urban design and safety planning?
· Among all the independent variables, which one has the most significant impact on women's safety perception, and what does this suggest for urban planning strategies?
· Could you elaborate on the formula derived for each time period (all day, daytime, and nighttime) and how these formulas can be applied practically in the context of urban village interface design?
· Are there any limitations or potential confounding factors that need to be considered in the interpretation of the regression results and the derived formulas?
· In the context of women's safety, what are the implications of these findings for designing urban spaces and improving safety perception for women?
· What are the primary differences between the classifications of building façade interfaces proposed by Bobić (2004) and Gehl [44] in terms of spatial perception and criteria?
· How does the interface of the first floor of a street impact regional dynamics and activities, as highlighted by reference [50] (pp. 101-108)?
· How does the concept of permeability, sociability, and activity from Gehl's classification relate to Bobić's spatial perception-based classification of interfaces?
· Can you explain the significance of transparency, enclosure, directness, traffic modes, visibility, vitality, and distance in relation to informal settlements' interfaces?
· What are the main characteristics of impermeable, accessible, and porous interfaces as categorized by certain literature [49]?
· How do the nine safety-related IUV variables in the study relate to the three main factors of penetrability, proximity, and scale?
· Could you elaborate on the notion of "human-scale" as it pertains to the study's focus on the first floor's interface accessible to pedestrians?
· Are there any specific examples provided in the study that demonstrate the influence of the first-floor interface on regional dynamics and activities?
· What are the potential implications of the research findings on urban design and planning, particularly in relation to safety and human-scale interfaces?
· How does cross angle, sky exposure, enclosure, and continuity individually affect women's sense of security according to the regression coefficients?
· What does the positive relationship between most independent variables and safety perception signify, and why is it important in the context of urban design and safety planning?
· Among all the independent variables, which one has the most significant impact on women's safety perception, and what does this suggest for urban planning strategies?
· Could you elaborate on the formula derived for each time period (all day, daytime, and nighttime) and how these formulas can be applied practically in the context of urban village interface design?
· Are there any limitations or potential confounding factors that need to be considered in the interpretation of the regression results and the derived formulas?
· In the context of women's safety, what are the implications of these findings for designing urban spaces and improving safety perception for women?
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to express our sincere gratitude for your valuable suggestions and critiques. We have carefully considered all of your recommendations and made the necessary revisions. To provide a better visual representation of the changes, please see the attachment.
Thank you once again for your support.
Sincerely,
All the authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The study explores the relationship between environmental interfaces in Chinese urban villages and women's safety. It identifies irregular and chaotic features in these areas, posing safety hazards for women. The research proposes interface micro-renewal strategies to improve safety, particularly for vulnerable populations. It has a good potential. However, there are some remarks for improvement.
1. Kindly address the numbering errors in the references and make the necessary corrections.
2. Please ensure consistency in the number of digits for all column values in the tables.
3. Kindly provide definitions for the abbreviations used in Table 5.
4. The findings presented in Figure 5 require further elaboration and discussion for better clarity and understanding.
5. Please indicate the significance levels using asterisks (*) in the "Sig." columns of the statistical results tables.
6. Certain measurements require proper referencing; here are some suggestions:
VIF: https://doi.org/10.3390/futuretransp2030038
Pearson’s correlation: https://www.utstat.toronto.edu/~brunner/oldclass/378f16/readings/CohenPower.pdf
7. Regarding Equation 5, consider either incorporating a dummy variable or creating a small matrix, as there is only one age value for each case.
8. It is advised to remove all citations from the conclusion section to maintain its coherence and focus on summarizing the research findings.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to express our sincere gratitude for your valuable suggestions and critiques. We have carefully considered all of your recommendations and made the necessary revisions. To provide a better visual representation of the changes, please see the attachment.
Thank you once again for your support.
Sincerely,
All the authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
No comments
Minor changes are required.
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper is revised according to previous comments, and the authors addressed my remarks. The paper is acceptable to me and seems publishable.
