Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Point1: Please provide the details of Data analysis techniques in the model section and the flow chart used for modeling. This will make the modeling process more clear.

Point2: Considering the limitation of using only a single city sample, it is advisable to supplement the conclusion with a discussion on the potential generalization of research methods and the outlook for future applications.

Point3: The research method has certain reference value for the management of urban road networks.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Fractal geometry has provided a new perspective for urban road network morphology research. This study systematically verifies and analyzes the spatial heterogeneity of fractal characteristics and influencing factors of urban road networks using spatial analysis, where Tokyo Metropolis was selected as a case study. The study selected population, built-up area density, and road network density as explanatory variables and constructed a global regression model OLS and a local regression model using GWR. The conducted experiments demonstrate that Tokyo has developed an extremely complete road network after long-term urban development, but we still observed significant spatial heterogeneity in the relationship between fractal characteristics of urban road networks and the influencing factors related to population, land use, and road network scale.

As for the general writing, the article is well structured and the main contribution is clear. However, the quality of this manuscript has been reduced by a few flaws.

1)        Above all, the scientific contribution of the presented work is not clear.

2)        The Molan’s Index, incl. both g????? and local ?????′? Indexes, have been calculated in the conducted research. As understood, these two indexes have been employed to achieve the LISA clusters of fractal dimension of road networks. However, the process (method) of the classifications of High-High, High-low, Low-low, Low-high clusters are not clear. Therefore, Figure 6 needs to be explained/described with more details.

3)        Moreover, the roles (functionalities) of Molan’s Index and the different clusters (High-High, High-low, Low-low, Low-high) are not clear in the process of analyzing the spatial distribution regression coefficients of explanatory variables.

4)        In the part of ‘Conclusion’, the authors mentioned that “Urban road networks with stronger fractal characteristics exhibit a more hierarchical structure and greater spatial coverage, which not only enhance accessibility but also improve the operational efficiency of the transportation system, reduce carbon emissions, and promote sustainable urban development.” Why??

Given the issues mentioned above, I recommend a ‘major revision’ as my general evaluation.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper exhibits several strong points. Firstly, it clearly formulates the research questions, focusing on the spatial heterogeneity of fractal characteristics and influencing factors of urban road networks in Tokyo. The literature review is comprehensive, providing an extensive overview of the application of fractal geometry in urban studies, specifically emphasising urban road network morphology. The methodology section is detailed, encompassing the study area, data collection and processing, fractal dimension calculation, spatial autocorrelation analysis, and regression model construction. The presentation of results is clear, including the fractal dimensions, spatial autocorrelation analysis findings, and regression model coefficients. These aspects contribute to the clarity and comprehensiveness of the paper's approach.

However, there are some areas for Improvement that the authors might need to address:

1. Clarity in Hypotheses: While the research questions are clearly stated, it would be beneficial for the paper to explicitly articulate the hypotheses being tested in the study. Clearly stating the expected outcomes or relationships being examined would provide a more structured approach to the research and help readers understand the specific expectations.

2. Discussion of Limitations: The paper should include a dedicated section discussing the limitations of the study. Identifying and acknowledging potential limitations, such as data constraints or methodological considerations, enhances the credibility of the research. Addressing these limitations demonstrates an awareness of potential weaknesses or constraints and strengthens the overall validity of the findings.

3. Comparison with Existing Studies: While the literature review provides a comprehensive background, the paper could further enhance its discussion by comparing and contrasting the findings with previous empirical studies on the topic. By examining how the current research aligns with or diverges from existing literature, the paper can establish the novelty and contribution of its findings more effectively.

4. Practical Implications and Future Research: The discussion section could be expanded to include the practical implications of the findings for urban planning or transportation management. Exploring how the results can inform decision-making or policy development adds value to the research. Additionally, suggesting avenues for future research based on the limitations or gaps identified in the study would demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of the topic and enhance the overall quality of the paper.

By addressing these areas for improvement, the paper can further strengthen its structure, credibility, and relevance in the field.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript has been well refined.

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have addressed all the comments.