Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please see the attachment, Major.docx

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comments, it's very helpful and instructive to us. For the response content please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Sustainable urban green blue space (UGBS) and public participation: Integrating multisensory landscape perception in Tokyo using deep learning methods

The research problem presented in this Paper is very interesting question and the topic of the great importance. Initial idea, as well as theoretical foundation, methodology, results and discussion are adequate and sufficient.

Main Title depict what the research really represents. My impression is that Main Title could be more concise.

Abstract is informative enough; however, the structure should be slightly adjusted, indicating most important results from this research and main conclusion. Keywords are well and informative enough.

Section Introduction is well conceived with a well-formed theoretical framework and elaborated approaches applied in other research studies.

Section Materials and Methods is very extensive and detailed, with clear organization line, however could be more concise. First part and 2.1. should be better structured and purified from repeating the same information. In line 212, subtitle should be marked as 2.3.

The Results section is well presented and conceptualized. All graphic attachments are clear and understandable. It is necessary to make better structure and linkage between the text and graphs toward easier and better understanding of the results.  Also, authors gave results and additional explanation like it should be in section Discussion. As well as, authors gave additional explanation of the used methods which are already given in the Section Materials and Methods, or which should be in that section. Please check the text and clean it. For Fig.8 should reorganized the figure caption, also, it is noticeable that under the artificial elements there is category other, with significant participation, so it should be useful to explain what is it standing for. Figure 9 should be reorganized as one with a possibility of comparison. In line 507 authors should sign the Fig 11. At the end of this Section, Tab 1 stands, without caption in the text, too large and should be reorganized.

In Section Discussion, authors made a good review of main conclusions and connect them with other results from similar researches, as a scientific confirmation of the obtained results.

Last section Conclusion is review of all presented results and conclusion, however, considering that this is a paper that aims to present an innovative methodological approach, I suggest to the authors that part 4.4. the innovation and deficiency of this research, elaborate and in the conclusion present all the advantages, disadvantages, possibilities and guidelines for the functional use of the proposed methods.

English language must be improved toward easier understanding of the research.

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comments, it's very helpful and instructive to us. For the response content please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The results would benefit from a slight edit - it's OK as is, but could be focused and edited to aid to the impact of the content.

Another point I would make is that the focus here is exclusively on amenity for people - therefore some of the suggestions may be negative from an ecological perspective. I would suggest that the authors consider reflecting on this in their discussion/conclusion, but it's certainly not necessary for publication. The paper overall is a solid and interesting analysis as it is.

English is entirely fine, but would benefit from an additional read through and tweak. 

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comments, it's very helpful and instructive to us. For the response content please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Chapter 1.3 is a bit too long in my opinion. It can be presented more concisely. Or perhaps such a section could be removed from the manuscript.

 

In the conclusion part, the emphasis from sustainability development goals on the communities with which this research is related can be repeated.

 

Were the classes of the ade20k dataset sufficient for the study? With state-of-the art models, it can be explained in more detail why the custom dataset is not worked on.

In my opinion, discussing the "The predictive role of each element" results more will improve the study more technically. Also, examining the connection between a statistical thesis and models, such as the Mc nemar hypothesis test of the models of the application, will also improve the study more technically.

Explanations and mathematical background about the PCA and k-means methods shown in the flow of the study can be added. At the same time, the effect of these algorithms on the whole study can be emphasized more.

 

Some images can be presented from the semantic segmentation results obtained as a result of using the FCN model.

 

At the end of the Introduction section, what has been done in this study, its originality, contribution to the literature and its widespread impact should be briefly presented.

The summary part is a bit messy, I recommend changing it to a summary that reflects the work done more clearly and concisely.

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comments, it's very helpful and instructive to us. For the response content please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Accept in present form