Exploring the Influence Mechanisms and Spatial Heterogeneity of Urban Vitality Recovery in the University Fringe Areas of Nanjing

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper " Exploring the Influence Mechanisms and Spatial Heterogeneity of Urban Vitality Recovery in the University Fringe Areas of Nanjing". The main objective of this study was to explore the influence mechanisms of urban vitality recovery in the university fringe areas using both linear and nonlinear models. After reading the article in detail my suggestion is that paper needs major revision.

1、 The study focuses on a 500-meter buffer zone around universities, which may not fully capture the spatial extent of the influence of universities on urban vitality. The manuscript would benefit from discussing the choice of this buffer zone and considering multiple scales to better understand the multilevel impacts of universities on surrounding areas.

2、 While the manuscript uses a combination of NTL data, POI data, and other socio-economic indicators, there is a potential risk of data limitations, especially regarding the representativeness and accuracy of the data. The authors should discuss any potential biases and the robustness of their findings in light of these data limitations.

3、 The use of both linear (OLS and GWR) and nonlinear (SHAP) models is a strength, but the manuscript could provide a more detailed justification for the choice of these models, especially in the context of the specific research questions and data characteristics. Additionally, the manuscript should discuss the assumptions underlying these models and how they might impact the results.

4、 The manuscript presents significant findings regarding the influence of university management and other factors on urban vitality recovery. However, the interpretation of these results could be strengthened by providing more context on how these findings relate to existing theories and previous studies. The authors should also discuss the practical implications of their findings for urban planning and policy-making.

5、 The study is specific to Nanjing, and while this provides valuable insights, the manuscript should discuss the extent to which these findings might be generalizable to other cities with different characteristics. The authors should also suggest directions for future research that could build on their findings, address the limitations of this study, and explore the broader implications of their research.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Recently I was asked to review a manuscript entitled by “Exploring the Influence Mechanisms and Spatial Heterogeneity of Urban Vitality Recovery in the University Fringe Areas of Nanjing”. Authors explored the influence mechanisms of urban vitality recovery in the university fringe areas using both linear and nonlinear models. It fits with the scope of the journal, and provides an interesting viewpoint. I have some suggestions for your consideration:

- Abstract. There are too may contents regarding the backgrounds. Please reduce.

- You provide very few quantitative results in the Abstract section. So please improve this part.

-The same issue exist in the Conclusion section. I don’t find any quantitative results in this part.

- I found that some figures have very poor quality. The legends are too small to see it clearly. For example, Figure 2 and Figure 4. Please improve them.

- Please add a flow chart in the methodology section.

- Figure 6. Please provide the correlation coefficient or fitting goodness.

- Why you chose both linear and nonlinear models for this study? What are their difference? Is it possible to use only one model? Please explain.

- Discussion. 4.3 Limitation is not enough. Authors should provide more analysis regarding modelling uncertainty. And, please add more quantitative analysis, not only mentioning one point. In my opinion, the current Discussion is not deep.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review Comments

Advantages

· Novel Research Perspective: Incorporating university management factors into the framework of urban vitality recovery analysis provides a fresh perspective. It uncovers the crucial role and complex associations of these factors in urban development after the COVID-19 pandemic and with the recovery of urban vitality.

· Comprehensive Methodology: The integration of linear and nonlinear methods (OLS, GWR, SHAP) comprehensively analyzes the impacts of multiple factors. It clearly presents the differences in factor effects across various regions and their linear and nonlinear characteristics, facilitating a deeper understanding of the dynamic mechanisms.

· Outstanding Practical Significance: Based on the research conclusions, targeted urban planning strategies are proposed. This holds significant guiding value for Nanjing and similar cities in formulating scientific plans, enhancing governance levels, and promoting the coordinated development of universities and their surroundings. It aids in precise resource allocation and the implementation of vitality enhancement measures.

Suggestions

i. Since the COVID-19 pandemic erupted in 2020, Chinese universities have implemented strict control measures. However, this article only analyzes the period from 2022 to 2024, lacking a comprehensive analysis of other years. Supplementary information from other years should be added for spatio-temporal analysis.

· 

i. The measurement of urban vitality in this study mainly relies on two categories of data: changes in nighttime lights and POIs. Several issues require detailed elaboration. 1. The resolution of nighttime lights is 500m, while the buffer radius of the research area is also 500m. Is this data valid? Please provide an explanation of any variations. 2. The POI data is sourced from Amap. Please describe how the different years' POI data was obtained for this study.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript investigates the spatial variation in urban vitality recovery following the pandemic. Recovery from the pandemic's shock is crucial for quality of life in cities, urban planning, and public policy. The research is valuable, mainly because it addresses a timely and significant topic. Additionally, the study's focus on university fringe areas and the role of universities in urban dynamics is well-articulated, especially as highlighted in the Discussion section. This aspect represents a noteworthy contribution.

 

While the manuscript shows promise, I recommend the authors address the following points to enhance its quality for publication.

 

Lines 18-21

It would be better to provide descriptive labels for the factors rather than listing their variable names. This change will improve readability and comprehension.

 

Lines 117-118

A deeper literature review on the concept of urban vitality is necessary, preferably in a dedicated section. In the current manuscript, the topic is briefly discussed in the Introduction and subsection 2.2, but the focus is primarily on measurement, lacking a thorough discussion of its conceptual meaning.

Specifically, more references and theoretical foundations are needed for the economic and cultural dimensions of urban vitality. Below are some key references on diverse dimensions of urban vitality. They commonly have rich literature reviews on the concept of urban vitality as well.

- social and economic dimensions

Ravenscroft, N. (2000). The Vitality and Viability of Town Centres. Urban Studies, 37(13), 2533–2549.

- social, economic, and cultural dimensions

Li, Q., Cui, C., Liu, F., Wu, Q., Run, Y., & Han, Z. (2022). Multidimensional Urban Vitality on Streets: Spatial Patterns and Influence Factor Identification Using Multisource Urban Data. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 11(1), 2.

 

Lines 157-158

The meaning of "radiation-driven effect" is unclear and requires further explanation.

 

Lines 217-238

The subsection discussing data used in the empirical study would be better placed after subsection 2.2 on urban vitality measurement. Reorganizing these sections would enhance the logical flow of the manuscript.

 

Lines 248-259

The argument that vitality recovery was faster in university fringe areas is not clearly supported by a comparison with other areas in Figure 2. Providing a clearer visual comparison would benefit readers unfamiliar with the study area.

The title of Figure 2, "Spatial characteristics of urban vitality," also seems inappropriate. It is unclear what the numerical values in the map represent. Is it the percentage change in urban vitality? A more descriptive title would help.

 

Line 352

The phrase "living, locational, and functional environments" is awkward. If the authors wish to retain these terms, additional explanation and relevant citations to clarify their meaning are necessary.

 

Lines 369-372

To strengthen the argument, the authors should include a contextual description of how universities functioned during the pandemic. For example, details such as the duration of university closures and whether students attended classes online, offline, or in a hybrid format would add depth.

 

Line 393

The use of a 500-meter buffer is acceptable and is explained elsewhere in the manuscript. However, a critical limitation is that some variables, such as NTL and population density, have resolutions coarser than the buffer size. This discrepancy should be acknowledged and discussed.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I agree to accept it.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has modified.