A Temporal–Spatial Activity Planning Method for Age-Friendly Communities from an Urban Renewal Perspective

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents an interesting and timely conceptual framework for age-friendly temporal-spatial planning. However, it must undergo significant revisions before it can be accepted for publication.

 

1. The manuscript currently introduces several important concepts, including age-friendly communities, temporal-spatial behavior, smart governance, and behavioral incentives. Nevertheless, the central research question remains somewhat broad. This paper would benefit from a clearer statement of its primary academic contribution. For example, the authors may explicitly explain whether the study aims to advance temporal-spatial planning theory, propose a governance framework, or demonstrate a practical optimization strategy for community renewal. In particular, a more focused approach will help enhance the overall academic contribution of this paper.
2. Many discussions are presented at a conceptual or planning framework level in this paper. Although the Tuolejia case provides a meaningful practical context, the empirical evidence supporting the proposed framework remains limited. The manuscript would be strengthened by providing more concrete data sources and analytical procedures, such as resident surveys, behavioral observation records, facility utilization statistics, or spatial accessibility measurements.
3. The manuscript repeatedly emphasizes “intelligent allocation,” “dynamic regulation,” and “multi-objective optimization.” But..., the current model description remains relatively simplified. The authors are encouraged to explain the optimization process in greater detail, including parameter settings, objective functions, constraints, calibration methods, and solution procedures.
4. The integration of AI, IoT sensing, and behavioral incentive mechanisms is an interesting aspect of this paper. Nevertheless, several discussions currently appear somewhat visionary and are not sufficiently supported by implementation evidence. The authors may consider moderating these claims and distinguishing clearly between:(1) concepts already implemented in the case study, and (2) future planning possibilities or policy recommendations.
5. The current discussion section focuses mainly on planning implications and practical recommendations. The authors may further explain how the findings extend, challenge, or complement previous studies. This could help move the paper beyond a practice-oriented proposal toward a stronger academic discussion.
6. The literature review is comprehensive in terms of Chinese planning policies and domestic studies. Nevertheless, the manuscript would benefit from deeper engagement with recent international scholarship published in international journals such as Cities, Urban Studies, Landscape and Urban Planning, and Environment and Planning B. In fact, more references related to adaptive public space governance, temporal urbanism, and intergenerational planning could help to make this paper strengthen the international relevance of the study.
7. A lot of sections of the manuscript are currently overly descriptive and repetitive, particularly in the "Introduction" and "Theoretical Background and Literature Review" sections. A more concise and polished academic writing style would improve readability and overall presentation quality of this paper.
8. The colors and resolution of Figures 2, 3, and 4 in this draft paper need to be improved. The formatting of all tables also needs to be optimized.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

  The authors undertake valuable research in the field of behavioral research, demonstrating the potential of analyzing user behavior for planning the use of existing urban resources, including public spaces. The topic of an aging society serves only as a backdrop for the study, as the results indicate the need to observe use across a broader age range. However, I have a few comments regarding the structure of the article:

1. The methodology chapter describes the literature background, which serves as the basis for selecting the research methodology. However, a proper description of the methodology used in the study appears only in the case study. Please organize the data regarding the methodology used.
2. The Discussion and Conclusion chapters are the same. At the same time, the Discussion chapter does not constitute a true scientific discussion. Elements from this area appear at the beginning of the article in relation to previous behavioral research studies. This provides an appropriate introduction to presenting the necessary research thesis and research questions. The Discussion chapter should include content directly resulting from the conducted research and relating to other research theses.                                                   

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.The article’s abstract provides a comprehensive description of the research results, but the methodological innovation is insufficiently highlighted. It is recommended to explicitly state in the abstract how the multi-objective optimization model and behavioral incentive mechanism overcome the limitations of existing studies.

2.In the introduction, the information in lines 40–57 is repetitive. It is suggested to condense this section into 3–4 sentences and to add specific micro-level behavior examples at lines 64–66, where it discusses the “community as a bridge to the city.” Lines 82–85 mention insufficient consideration of inter-group demand relationships.

3.The literature review contains relatively few international references (lines 131–139). It is suggested to include practical examples of age-friendly communities from organizations such as the WHO or OECD.

4.The research framework is complex, and the modules presented in Figure 1 lack clear input-output specifications. It is recommended to add a legend or process description so that readers can clearly understand each module’s inputs, outputs, and interactions.

5.In lines 301–310, the “intelligent zoning control” section does not specify the logic for selecting zoning scales; it is suggested to clarify how community scale and functional zones are matched. In lines 344–356, the “behavioral incentive mechanism” could include quantification or formula details to improve reproducibility. The collaborative planning section (lines 358–411) is lengthy and should be split to emphasize the four sub-modules: spatial structure optimization, facility optimization, landscape optimization, and policy intervention, making the logic clearer.

6.Lines 429–461 provide a detailed description of the data-driven personalized behavioral guidance system, but data privacy and ethical issues are not addressed. It is recommended to include these considerations.

7.Lines 584–611 discuss differences in space usage among different groups; it is suggested to add heatmaps or activity-time charts to allow intuitive comparison of activity rhythms and spatial preferences.

8.Figure 6 illustrates the time-segmented usage scheme. It is recommended to clarify in the figure caption which colors or symbols correspond to specific groups and time periods for easier interpretation.

9.Lines 652–664 and 667–680 contain repetitive content and could be merged and streamlined to highlight the core methodological steps, such as data collection, time period segmentation, behavioral incentive application, and simulation outputs.

10.In lines 712–775, the time-segmented optimization model contains many formulas; it is suggested to provide textual explanations of each constraint’s physical or social significance so that readers without a mathematical background can understand.

11.Figures 8 and 9 (lines 781, 801) and Tables 2 and 3 (lines 797, 823) could be presented in a combined format to help readers relate the model formulas, figures, and tabular data.

12.Lines 851–862 in the discussion could include analysis of resident preference voting and long-term operational and maintenance costs, making the conclusions more practically actionable.

13.In the conclusion, it is noted that urban planning internationally still primarily focuses on spatial layout (lines 897–901). It is recommended to add international case comparisons, for example from Europe, the United States, or Japan, in terms of time-dimension planning.

14.The article contains many long sentences (lines 245–280, 301–310). It is suggested to break up long sentences and use subsections or numbered points for clarity. The connection between figures/tables and text is somewhat abrupt; transitional sentences such as “This figure illustrates… to support the subsequent analysis” should be added.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The article contains many long sentences (lines 245–280, 301–310). It is suggested to break up long sentences and use subsections or numbered points for clarity. The connection between figures/tables and text is somewhat abrupt; transitional sentences such as “This figure illustrates… to support the subsequent analysis” should be added.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article has improved significantly, particularly in terms of the clarity with which the research findings are presented. I would be grateful, if you could replace Figure 4 with a higher-resolution image, as this will improve the clarity of the graphic.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your positive feedback and detailed comments on the manuscript. Your input is invaluable in helping us improve the quality of the paper.

Based on your suggestion, we have redrawn and optimized Figure 4 at a higher resolution to improve the clarity of the graphic details. The revised version has been included in the updated draft.

Thank you once again for your patience and professional guidance. We will pay closer attention to image quality in our future papers.

Best regards.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

After carefully reviewing your revised manuscript, I am pleased to see that my previous comments have been well addressed.

The additional discussions on the limitations and innovations are very reasonable. Moreover, the overall quality of the manuscript has been significantly improved and now reaches the publishable standard.

Therefore, my recommendation is to accept it.

Best regards.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We are deeply honored and encouraged by your positive feedback on the revised draft. Each of your suggestions has played a crucial role in improving the quality of the paper, and we sincerely appreciate your acknowledgment of the revisions.

Your expert guidance has significantly enhanced the rigor and depth of our research. We would like to express our sincere gratitude to you once again!

Best regards.