A Study on the Cognition of Urban Spatial Image at Community Scale: A Case Study of Jinghu Community in Zhengzhou City

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This study analyzed the cognitive quantification of spatial images at the community level in the study area. The methods are adequately described and findings are presented. However, I found a couple of issues that need to be addressed:

1. The Introduction section can be improved. I suggest adding more case studies on the literature to depict the full picture of cognitive spatial image quantification in this section.

2. Section 2.2: what was the spatial resolution of the remote sensing images used? In addition, a brief description of the AHP and EWM methods would help the readers understand these phenomena better.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript titled " A Study on the Cognition of Urban Spatial Image at Community Scale: A Case Study of Jinghu Community in Zhengzhou City " intends to start from the micro-scale of the urban spatial image, took community space as the research object, and used spatial analysis methods to establish the connection between city image and spatial analysis results. This paper discussed the cognitive characteristics of residents' spatial images from the perspectives of the form and service of spatial elements at the community scale to enrich the study of city image. The manuscript select data from Jinghu Community, which is under the jurisdiction of Renhe Road Street, Erqi District, Zhengzhou City, Henan Province.

The research is original; it could be characterized as novel and in my opinion important to the field, it also has an almost appropriate structure, and the language has been used well. In the meanwhile, the manuscript has an almost short extent (about 5,900 words) and it is quite comprehensive. The tables (2) and the figures (10) make the paper reflect well to the reader. For this reason, paper has a "diversity look", not only tables, not only numbers, not only words.

The title, I think, is all right. The abstract reflects well the findings of this study, and it was the appropriate length. For the Methodology chapter, the research conduct has been tested in several areas of the world, with comparable results and will probably be tested in others. Appropriate references to the methodology included in the already published bibliography but you can put more references, from all over the world. Do not forget, the journal “Land” is international.

Please revise the manuscript and include more references which already exist in the bibliography. I would be much more satisfied if the number of references was slightly higher (about 25 - 30 references) and I would appreciate it if it also included data from all the word (Asia, America, Europe, or Australia). In this way it is documented that a method that is tested in a place with its own characteristics can be implemented in other places around the world.

The introduction is effective, clear, and well organized; it really introduced and put into perspective what research is negotiating. Please revise the Introduction of the manuscript and include references which are already exists in bibliography. Moreover, it does not contain a clear formulation and description of the research problem. This makes it difficult for the reader to understand the argumentation. Please insert a clear description and justification of the problem the article deals with. It is advised to revise the Discussion and Conclusion. Both sections should be consistent in terms of Proposal, Problem statement, Results, and of course, future work (as you did). Your conclusion section is short and does not justice to your work. Make it your key contributions, arguments, and findings clearer. You must refer to the literature and previous studies in your discussion section.

More discussion is needed, comparing the results of this work related to attributes with those of other studies. I believe that the conclusions section or discussion should also include the main limitations of this study and incorporate possible policy implications. Something more should be said about practical implications.

Please revise the references of the manuscript and include references which are already exists in bibliography. References must have an appropriate style, for this reason I would be good to change [see: Instructions for Authors / Manuscript Preparation / Back Matter / References: - (https://www.mdpi.com/journal/land/instructions or https://www.mdpi.com/authors/references)]. Do not forget, DOI numbers (Digital Object Identifier) are not mandatory but highly encouraged and make the review easier.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Overall Comments

The paper proposes to solve the problem of insufficient research on the cognitive quantification of community spatial images. The approach of the paper is interesting and produces important results that can be further reproduced in some other areas. However, the paper does not offer sufficient information for this method to be reproduced. Once the paper proposes to “solve the problem of insufficient research”, I was expecting a step-by-step Methodology section (almost like a tutorial); also, in this section, the authors should explain how to interpret each of the results. Below, I present some inquiries and suggestions that the authors should consider:

1.     Proofread the text, as some parts of the paper are difficult to read.

2.     Abstract: How is it possible to solve the problem of insufficient research? More details of the methods should be given; and the results must be presented in this section. The conclusion of the abstract is written as the method can be used anywhere – how can this be possible?

3.     Introduction: It must be clear in this section what the importance of this type of analysis is; How can the results found in this type of analysis can help solve real problems of the community or improve their quality of life?

4.     Methodology: The authors must add more details in the Methodology section; explain how to understand each of the results found. In addition, it is not completely clear in the Methodology section how the dataset was used to perform the method. Is it possible to provide a process flowchart of the analyses in this section? That way, it would be easier to understand (reproduce) the step-by-step analyses.

4.1. Reference all used formulas. Furthermore, it is not clear how each of the formulas was used in the case study.

4.2. Subsection 2.3.1 is written as a literature review, not a method.

5.     Results: Remove from the Results section everything related to the Methodology used. Can you validate the results statistically?

6.     Discussion: The Discussion section is not well explored. Some part of it is written as results or conclusion. In this section, the authors must at least explore: i) What do the results mean? ii) What are the implications of these results? iii) How it differs from other similar analyses (more than one if possible)? iv) How can the community use these findings?

7.     Conclusion: The authors must include in this section what are the conclusions according to what they found in their analyses.

Specific comments

Line 16: “TOPSIS” - write the meaning of the acronym the first time you mention it.

Line 19: Who “can”?

Line 38: Reference Kevin Lynch’s work.

Line 39: Reference this relevant empirical research.

Line 58: What do you mean by “excavate”?

Line 75: What is a “smart community pilot”? The explanation of the terms can make the paper easier to read by foreign researchers.

Lines 90-92: This sentence is hard to read.

Lines 93-95: How do you classify the data? Manually?

Line 98: What is the meaning of the acronym “POI”?

Line 121: What does “SBC” mean? Why do you use this acronym?

Line 121: Reference Boyce and Clark’s work.

Formulas: Reference all of them. Where do they come from?

Figure 2: Include in the image all terms that are mentioned in the text and are relevant in these analyses, which I believe are: “image types”; “image structures”; “spatial indicators”. Also, in this figure is not clear how the relationship between spatial indicators and image types can construct image structures.

Lines 171-173: Must be referenced.

Line 173: What do you mean by “improve the problem”?

Lines 182 and 183: What does “ith” mean?

Lines 186-199: This part of the text is written as a literature review and a justification of why using they are using the method - it should not be in the methodology section.

Lines 219-224; 228-231; 236-238; 257-262; 275-279; 283-285; 287-291; 304-311; 325-337; 354-383; 393-396: These texts are explanations of the methods used; therefore, they should be in the methodology section.

Lines 235-236: Incomplete sentence.

Line 371: Incomplete sentence.

Line 432: Reference Lynch’s work.

Lines 453-460: This is not a conclusion of the paper.

Lines 461-469: This is a review of the paper, not a conclusion.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The article entitled "A Study on the Cognition of Urban Spatial Image at Community Scale: A Case Study of Jinghu Community in Zhengzhou City" takes up an interesting and important topic. Proposes a new method of cognition of urban spatial image using GIS. I believe the article is worth publishing, but I suggest some improvements.

1. The purpose of the article is properly formulated only in the abstract. The aim of the article is to propose a new method and apply it to a specific spatial example. The goal should be stated in either the Introduction or the Methodology part.

2. The proposed model is very much needed in research, as it allows to study the space of local communities with the use of publicly available spatial data, which is much cheaper and more accessible. The model, however, has a certain weakness as it is largely based on the researcher's judgment, i.e. it should be used by people who are experts, taking into account the specificity of the studied area, especially in the cultural context. For example, in some communities the greatest traffic on communication routes may be generated not by a gym/fitness, but for example by a church or school. I propose to discuss this sensitivity of the model to expert knowledge in the  Discussion section.

3. The article needs to be reviewed  in terms of grammar and language. Part 1 of the article (up to the Results section)  is hard to read and understand.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have made key changes to the paper, improving its overall quality, and making clear the originality and the significance of its content.