The Study of Historical Progression in the Distribution of Urban Commercial Space Locations—Example of Paris

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments:

General: Your paper well written in in terms of paper structure as well writing. However in my opinion the paper did not added interesting and new information in our knowledge of urban studies as well planning. 

Specific comments:

1- They are many figures in the text. I think the authors can lessen the number of figures used. They also can remove some old figures which did not add any new and innovative information to the previous knowledge. You can also clarify the legends of figures. Some figures quality was low. 

2- Forgive my bitter review. I have a bit of a problem with experts who see and analyse the city only as streets and buildings that are next to each other. Although your article has been able to use the methods of Space Syntax to analyse the structure of streets and its spatial connections with commercial use, it is not considered an innovation in terms of urban planning and something new to our understanding of urban issues as well methods. It is preferable to answer these concerns for readers in the introduction.

- What is your study novelty? mention in introduction. 

-Why didn't you choose Chinese Cities and go to Paris? For readers who will read your affiliations, this is the first query (It does not affect the review of the article). 

- Was the analysis of changes in commercial land use using historical data on land uses and a straightforward approach insufficient for your needs? 

- Why you used these methods instead of land use change detection tools?

3) Can you please compare your findings with previous studies in discussion part? 

4) What are your findings benefits for city planning and decision makers exactly which have not been addressed in previous urban studies or plans? Please add policy implications/recommendations based on your main findings. 

Please revise your paper according to my specific comments. 

Best

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Title: The title clearly states the primary objective of the paper, which is to study the evolution of commercial space locations in Paris. However, the word "evolution" might be misleading as it could indicate a biological or genetic process. Perhaps a more apt term could be "historical progression" or "development."

 

Abstract:

Sentence Structure & Grammar: There are instances of awkward phrasing.

"Commercial space locations is a long-term investment..." The subject 'locations' is plural so the verb should be "are," not "is."

"its crucial for sustainable profitability." It should be "it's" instead of "its."

 

Clarity and Specificity:

The phrase "today" in the context of the three historical stages is vague. A specific year or decade would provide clearer context.

The term "geological dispersal" may be misleading. Geological usually refers to earth and rock, whereas geographical or spatial might be more appropriate.

 

Methodology:

The mention of using "Space Syntax and Cluster Analysis" is appropriate, but it would benefit from a brief description or rationale, especially for those unfamiliar with the methodologies.

 

Findings:

The mention of two major patterns discovered is helpful. However, more detailed insights or specific examples from each historical period might make the findings more compelling in an abstract.

 

Implications & Relevance:

The conclusion about providing insights for urban developers is broad. Elaborating on how these insights can be directly applied or offering specific recommendations would be beneficial.

 

Introduction:

The introduction is verbose and could be streamlined for clarity.

Presenting the historical evolution of commercial space locations and theories in separate sections could help the reader differentiate the foundational concepts from historical context.

Specific Comments:

 

Lines 26-34: The phrase 'locations, locations, locations' is colloquial. An academic paper would benefit from a more formal introduction. Consider introducing the topic by emphasizing the importance of location decisions in economics and urban development.

Lines 36-52: The paper draws on a variety of theories, yet it isn't clear how these are integrated into the paper's core argument. A synthesis of these theoretical perspectives, emphasizing their relevance to the paper's focus, would be useful.

Lines 53-65: The transition from economic theories to urban planning and geography seems abrupt. A smoother segue, detailing how economic principles transition to spatial considerations, would be beneficial.

Lines 66-85: While Paris is justified as a study site due to its rich history, there should be more emphasis on why understanding its evolution offers insights applicable to other urban contexts.

Lines 87-104: The justification for using Space Syntax and Clustering Analysis is clear. However, the narrative could be condensed to avoid redundancies and make it more reader-friendly.

Lines 105-115: The summary is extensive. It's essential to keep summaries concise to avoid losing reader interest.

Lines 116-121: This part does a good job of setting out the main aims of the study.

Lines 122-131: The intended outcomes are clear but could be stated more succinctly.

Lines 132-137: The structure of the remaining article is outlined, but it might be beneficial to specify what each section contributes to the overall argument.

General Observations:

 

Clarity and Consistency: The paper seems to oscillate between an academic and colloquial tone. A consistent, formal tone would be appropriate for the subject matter.

Terminology: The term "geological center" (Line 39) is misused. In the context of urban distribution and commercial spaces, the term should probably be "geographical center" or "geometric center."

Citations: There are ample citations, which is good for academic rigor. However, ensuring that all these references are directly relevant and critical to the paper's argument is crucial.

Relevance: Some historical details, while interesting, might not be directly relevant to the paper's main argument. The author should consider what details are necessary to set the context and which ones can be eliminated or condensed.

Integration of Theories: The introduction delves deep into various theories. Integrating these theories seamlessly and emphasizing their relevance to the paper's main argument can provide clarity.

Purpose and Contribution: While the paper's objectives are laid out, articulating its unique contribution to the existing body of literature will set the stage for its significance.

 

should be improved.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. Thank you!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Could be accepted.