A Study on the Methodology for Estimating Floating Population in Microscopic Spatial Units

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper presents a model developed to estimate pedestrian flows at the mesoscale. The topic is interesting considering the present concern in developing polycentric cities (e.g., 15-minute cities) that ensure most daily necessities access within walking distance from residents' homes.

 

The applied methodology based on the four-step model is well described. The limitations of the study and those associated with the model use are emphasized.

 

Suggestions for future research to address the model limits would be valuable.

 

 

I recommend the publication of the paper in its present form.

 

Author Response

Thank you for reviewing our research. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper establishes a methodology for estimating pedestrian volume based on the results of a long-term forecasting model that integrates land use and transport. This is an interesting topic with important practical applications for the urban mobility and road safety sector. In the following, I will make some recommendations that I consider can improve the quality of the manuscript.

The introduction should include the usual reasons why users travel as pedestrians, as well as the main reasons that limit the possibilities of choosing this mode of travel. Evidence points to road infrastructure and public transport conditions as determinants of mode choice (cite: https://doi.org/10.3390/infrastructures6110153 and https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2017.08.009).

The methodology and data presented are clearly and adequately presented. However, I consider it important to include a discussion section. This section should consist of explaining and contrasting the results of the study with other similar research in order to explain the data obtained. Thus, the authors should answer questions such as: were the results in line with expectations?, are the results congruent with other similar research? And, if not, which elements explain the discrepancies that have occurred?

I also recommend including a specific sub-section in which the main limitations of the research are stated.

Author Response

Thank you for reviewing our research. 

We wrote the answers in word file regarding the opinions of the reviewer.

Please check the attached file.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Nice work! The authors estimated the pedestrian volume according to a forecasting model integrating land use and Transportation network. This paper is well written and the study is well conducted.

Just some minor comments:

1- I would recommend the authors to add the line numbers so reviewers can comment easily.

2- Page 2, section 2.1, what is meant by (gu) and (dong) districts? Please clarify.

3- Page 3, 4th paragraph, Correct the typo in “trio” generation.

4- please add the axis titles in Figure 10.

 

Just quick question: how does the pedestrian volume estimation using this methodology is different from other existing methodologies that consider using mathematical models such as Warshal Algorithm to predict volumes?

Author Response

Thank you for reviewing our research. 

We wrote the answers in word file regarding the opinions of the reviewer.

Please check the attached file.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have taken into account the suggestions I provided in my previous review, so I consider that the manuscript is suitable for publication