Promoting Public Health Through Urban Walkability: A GIS-Based Assessment Approach, Experienced in Milan
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsGeneral remarks:
The article titled Promoting Public Health Through Urban Walkability: A GIS-Based Assessment Approach, Experienced in Milano, introduces a framework for assessing urban walkability using GIS technology. It features the Milano Walkability Measurement Tool (MWM-Tool), which combines geospatial data to evaluate the city's Density, Diversity, and Design. The study shows noticeable differences in walkability across Milan. The results show that the central areas are much more pedestrian-friendly than the suburbs. The article highlights how urban design is crucial in shaping public health, particularly by promoting walkability. It points out that when neighbourhoods are designed to be more walkable, it encourages people to incorporate physical activity into their daily lives, which is essential for overall well-being.
Recommendations:
- There is a lack of a clearly stated research question. Clearly define the research question at the end of the introduction to guide the research. Answer the question in the conclusion.
- The weights assigned to sub-indicators (Density, Diversity, Design) are based on expert judgment without justification. Authors should describe the expert selection process and their criteria for assigning weights.
- The model does not incorporate economic disparities, car dependency, or cultural walking habits. This could be amended.
- The presumption that urban morphology only influences walkability may be overly simplistic. Please expand on this.
- The study confirms the expected results (the city centre has better walkability than suburban areas) but does not explore unexpected findings.
- The model requires expertise in GIS for replication, reducing accessibility for non-technical urban planners. This should be clearly stated.
- The study provides important findings but lacks concrete policy recommendations. Suggest specific policy interventions to prove walkability in low-scoring areas. Provide best-practice examples from cities that have successfully enhanced walkability.
- The article provides a solid theoretical background, but it does not contextualize its findings in relation to previous research. The discussion lacks a clear comparison with existing walkability studies and does not fully integrate secondary literature to highlight how the study advances or contrasts with past research.
The study provides an innovative GIS-based tool for assessing urban walkability. The MWM tool is a valuable tool that can be applied to different cities. Its findings guide public policies to enhance urban walkability, while AI and significant data advancements may allow for better predictions of urban mobility trends in the future.
Author Response
There is a lack of a clearly stated research question. Clearly define the research question at the end of the introduction to guide the research. Answer the question in the conclusion. please check improvements in lines 209-213 and lines 608-613
The weights assigned to sub-indicators (Density, Diversity, Design) are based on expert judgment without justification. Authors should describe the expert selection process and their criteria for assigning weights. please check improvements in lines 174-189
The model does not incorporate economic disparities, car dependency, or cultural walking habits. This could be amended. The research work, according to the Macro dimension purpose, includes only quantitative features; qualitative and behavioral features, proper of the Micro dimension, will be part of further more observational studies.
The presumption that urban morphology only influences walkability may be overly simplistic. Please expand on this. Urban morphology is considered in the Macro dimension, DENSITY (1st) and DESIGN (3rd) criteria.
The study confirms the expected results (the city centre has better walkability than suburban areas) but does not explore unexpected findings. please check improvements in lines 503-515
The model requires expertise in GIS for replication, reducing accessibility for non-technical urban planners. This should be clearly stated. please check improvements in lines 623-628
The study provides important findings but lacks concrete policy recommendations. Suggest specific policy interventions to prove walkability in low-scoring areas. Provide best-practice examples from cities that have successfully enhanced walkability. please check improvements in lines 598-603
The discussion lacks a clear comparison with existing walkability studies and does not fully integrate secondary literature to highlight how the study advances or contrasts with past research. please check improvements in lines 640-647
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors*The abstract is overly lengthy. A concise introduction covering the background, key innovations, research methods, and main conclusions is sufficient.
*The manuscript determines the macro dimensions and sub-index weights based on expert opinions (lines 223-229). However, the author should specify the criteria for expert selection, provide a list of selected experts, and detail the method used to determine their weight----whether it be the Delphi method or the Analytic Hierarchy Process. These details should be included in either the manuscript or the supplementary materials.
*While macro dimensions (e.g., density and design) rely primarily on quantitative data, the study does not account for micro-level factors influencing the walking experience, such as street lighting and road quality. This omission may result in the exclusion of critical determinants.
*The study conducted independent evaluations based on NILs but did not consider spatial interactions between adjacent areas (such as cross-regional walking needs or facility sharing), which may underestimate or overestimate the level of local walkability.
*The research content in the manuscript is innovative, but I hope the author can add a part of limitations and shortcomings, including insufficient data acquisition, simplified research mode, and limitations in the scope of application, which can further stimulate readers' thinking.
Author Response
The manuscript determines the macro dimensions and sub-index weights based on expert opinions (lines 223- 229). However, the author should specify the criteria for expert selection, provide a list of selected experts, and detail the method used to determine their weight----whether it be the Delphi method or the Analytic Hierarchy Process. These details should be included in either the manuscript or the supplementary materials. please check improvements in lines 174-189
While macro dimensions (e.g., density and design) rely primarily on quantitative data, the study does not account for micro-level factors influencing the walking experience, such as street lighting and road quality. This omission may result in the exclusion of critical determinants. please check improvements in lines 608-613
The study conducted independent evaluations based on NILs but did not consider spatial interactions between adjacent areas (such as cross-regional walking needs or facility sharing), which may underestimate or overestimate the level of local walkability. please check improvements in lines 277-283
The research content in the manuscript is innovative, but I hope the author can add a part of limitations and shortcomings, including insufficient data acquisition, simplified research mode, and limitations in the scope of application, which can further stimulate readers' thinking. please check improvements in lines 204-206 and 604-607
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper utilizes GIS technology to examine walkability in urban areas. Below are several concers and suggestions for improvement:
1.The abstract is overly verbose. While the authors have employed a structure that addresses each section individually, the content lacks clarity regarding the specific focus of each section. A complete revision of the abstract is recommended to improve conciseness and clarity.
2.It is suggested that the terms "Milano" and "Milan" be standardized throughout the manuscript for consistency.
3.The description of the paper's contributions (lines 173-175) is brief and insufficiently detailed. A more thorough explanation is needed regarding the motivation behind the research, including an explicit discussion of the gaps in the existing literature. The paper should also clearly highlight how it extends or diverges from prior studies, especially considering the substantial body of research on the application of GIS technology to waklability analysis. A review of this literature should be included in the manuscript.
4.Section 1.3, as a research tool, is better placed in the methodology or data section. It could be integrated with Section 2.1 to maintain logical flow and coherence.
5. Further clarification is required on the basis for determining the coefficients in Equations (1)-(4). The methodology behind these calculations should be explained in greater detail. Same to other equations.
6.The specific methodology employed in the study needs to be more clearly defined. Was the analysis conducted using the MWM-Tool? Moreover, the paper should explicitly state its innovative contributions. If these elements are not clearly articulated, the overall academic rigor of the paper may be called into question.
Need to be impoved.
Author Response
The abstract is overly verbose. While the authors have employed a structure that addresses each section individually, the content lacks clarity regarding the specific focus of each section. A complete revision of the abstract is recommended to improve conciseness and clarity. improved in the new (reviewed) version
It is suggested that the terms "Milano" and "Milan" be standardized throughout the manuscript for consistency. solved in the new (reviewed) version
The description of the paper's contributions (lines 173- 175) is brief and insufficiently detailed. A more thorough explanation is needed regarding the motivation behind the research, including an explicit discussion of the gaps in the existing literature. The paper should also clearly highlight how it extends or diverges from prior studies, especially considering the substantial body of research on the application of GIS technology to waklability analysis. A review of this literature should be included in the manuscript. please check improvements both in lines 209-213 and paragraphs 5.1 and 5.2
Section 1.3, as a research tool, is better placed in the methodology or data section. It could be integrated with Section 2.1 to maintain logical flow and coherence. improved in the new (reviewed) version
Further clarification is required on the basis for determining the coefficients in Equations (1)-(4). The methodology behind these calculations should be explained in greater detail. Same to other equations. please check improvements in lines 174-189
The specific methodology employed in the study needs to be more clearly defined. Was the analysis conducted using the MWM-Tool? Moreover, the paper should explicitly state its innovative contributions. If these elements are not clearly articulated, the overall academic rigor of the paper may be called into question. please check improvements in paragraphs 5.1 and 5.2
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI have no further comments.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authorsall my concers have been addressed
