Multi-Dimensional Benefit Evaluation of Urban Spaces Driven by Consumer Preferences
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI do not understand what its mean: "2.3. Conceptual Definition nmnm"?
The purpose of using structural equation modelling (SEM) in the study requires a more detailed explanation.
Similarly, the selection of characteristics for the study should be better justified (the one used is typically ‘econometric’ – one took what was easy to get hold of).
In my opinion, there are too many illustrations (maps) – it is practically impossible for the reader to analyse them comparatively.
The three general conclusions drawn from the research are disproportionate (they could also be reached using much less complex approaches) to the degree of their methodological and procedural complexity – I would suggest a broader justification for these conclusions (e.g. using a comparative method with the results of other studies – i.e. abroad?).
- What is the main question addressed by the research?
The article assesses the spatial benefits resulting from consumer preferences using a methodology that combines subjective decisions and objective environmental factors. The text is intended to have practical value in identifying measures to improve the quality of urban spatial resources. It aims to provide quantitative evidence useful in urban planning and public investment. Five research hypotheses have been formulated, the first two of which I would consider scientifically significant.
Do you consider the topic original or relevant to the field? Does it address a specific gap in the field? Please also explain why this is/ is not the case.
The article is interesting in terms of methodology and, in this sense, is original. The study presented an “environment-perception–behaviour” analytical framework grounded in SOR (stimulus–organism–response) theory. The question is to identify causal paths and quantitatively determine the marginal value of spatial elements. The authors have proposed targeted recommendations for optimisation, which can form the basis for a policy of functional positioning of urban space and social investment. It is also important to evaluate the assessment criteria that facilitate the prioritisation of actions. In my opinion, however, the use of a relatively complicated methodology to assess the value of urban space components requires much better justification – mainly to reinforce the validity of using such a complex quantitative methodology, in which everything depends on the proper justification of the variables and initial characteristics selected for the study.
- What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material?
Research using SEM and HPM modelling to explain the mechanism linking the consumption environment with the perceptions and behaviours of the urban population, simultaneously quantifying the value of key elements, positively distinguishes this analysis from other publications. However, the valuation of environmental assets and their combination with users' consumption preferences are, in various aspects, the subject of relatively numerous studies and publications (necessary to cite examples) then the use of three modelling approaches together (SEM, HPM and SROI) is somewhat innovative. Perhaps the shift away from models based on investments explaining urban economic growth towards models that take into account mass consumption and lifestyle-related services can be considered a novelty in the presented text.
What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the methodology?
As I have already mentioned, the authors should provide a much better explanation for their choice of observed variables that make up the latent variable groups (Fig. 1). Why are these particular observed characteristics composed into the latent variables and, more broadly, into the benefit dimensions?
Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and do they address the main question posed? Please also explain why this is/is not the case.
The research conducted on the cause-and-effect relationships between the consumption environment, perception and behaviour is intended to enable an assessment of the diverse impact of environmental factors on consumption patterns and the level of supply-demand matching. This objective of the article has been achieved, although using a very sophisticated methodological approach. The application of a quantitative approach to spatial values in the city and the assessment of multidimensional benefits, treated as practical factors shaping urban policy and investments, have confirmed the validity of the research hypotheses.
Are the references appropriate?
There should be more references to analogous examples and different methodological approaches (I point to several examples below), due to the compound and, all in all, sophisticated methodology of assessing spatial benefits in the functioning of the city (Tianjin) and its formal surroundings.
Bottero, M., Bravi, M., Dell’Anna, F., Mondini, G. (2018). Valuing buildings energy efficiency through Hedonic Prices Method: are spatial effects relevant?. Valori e valutazioni, (21).
Giovanis, E. (2019). Worthy to lose some money for better air quality: applications of Bayesian networks on the causal effect of income and air pollution on life satisfaction in Switzerland. Empirical Economics 57, 1579–1611. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00181-018-1509-5
Guan, H., Guo, X. (2022). Coupling Coordination Analysis of Urban Tourism Environment Quality and the Tourism Economy: A Case Study of Nanjing City, Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 9518122, 13 p. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/9518122
Guignet, D., Lee, J. (2021). State of the Art of Hedonic Pricing. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Environmental Science. Retrieved 24 Oct. 2025, from https://oxfordre.com/environmentalscience/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199389414.001.0001/acrefore-9780199389414-e-555
Setiowati, R., Koestoer, R.H., Andajani, R.D. (2024). Monetary valuation of urban green open space using the Hedonic price model. Global J. Environ. Sci. Manage., 10(2): 451-472.
Wen, L. (2024). Analytical study on the coupling coordination degree of tourism and urban development — Taking Shaanxi as an example. Eco Cities. 5(2): 2857. https://doi.org/10.54517/ec.v5i2.2857
Zhou, S., Ji, Q., Zhang, L., Wu, J., Li, P., Zhang, Y. (2025). Exploration of Differences in Housing Price Determinants Based on Street View Imagery and the Geographical-XGBoost Model: Improving Quality of Life for Residents and Through-Travelers. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 14(10), 391. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi14100391
Zhu, S., Huang, J., Zhao, Y. (2022). Coupling coordination analysis of ecosystem services and urban development of resource-based cities: A case study of Tangshan city, Ecological Indicators, Vol .136, 108706, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2022.108706.
Any additional comments on the tables and figures.
I have no further comments. I think there are too many illustrations (maps) in the article, which are difficult for the reader to interpret rationally. I would select the maps attached to the text.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for inviting me to review this article, ‘Multi-dimensional Benefit Evaluation of Urban Spaces Driven by Consumption Preferences’. The authors employ Tianjin as a case study to construct a multi-dimensional benefit evaluation framework for urban spaces grounded in consumer preferences. The paper quantifies the value of urban spatial elements, uncovers the transmission mechanisms between consumption environments and consumer preferences, and calculates the benefits of urban spaces under different consumption orientations. It applies multiple methodologies including structural equation modelling, hedonic pricing, XGBoost, coupling coordination index, and social return on investment. The paper exhibits a coherent structure and appropriate methodology, though revisions are required prior to publication:
1. Lines 32–33. The paper describes China's urbanisation transition from incremental expansion to stock management, alongside shifts in urban economic growth models, yet fails to explore the specific context and drivers of this transformation in depth. This section should address the multifaceted background of China's urbanisation phase transition, including policy orientation, social demand, and economic restructuring. Referencing the following references("Does land transfer promote the development of new-type urbanization? New evidence from urban agglomerations in the middle reaches of the Yangtze River" ; "Synergistic pathways between urbanization and low-carbon development: Evidence from the Yangtze River Economic Belt") are recommended to enhance comprehensiveness, particularly concerning the context of China's new urbanisation.
2. Lines 109–133. This section discusses the relationship between consumption preferences and urban spatial value, yet lacks sufficient critical analysis of existing research. The shortcomings of prior studies—such as methodological limitations and theoretical gaps—should be articulated to highlight the value and strengths of this paper.
3. Lines 335–379. The results analysis employs an XGBoost model to examine threshold relationships between consumption environments and preferences, yet lacks in-depth analysis of the underlying logic. The paper should articulate how these thresholds inform urban planning and investment decisions.
4. In the results analysis, the authors evaluate the multidimensional benefits of urban spaces under different consumption orientations. However, they fail to compare their relative strengths and weaknesses across different regions or propose comprehensive optimisation strategies.
5. The conclusions and discussion lack focus. The authors inadequately elaborate on how the findings can be practically applied to urban planning and policy formulation. Specifically, concrete policy recommendations are lacking regarding how to optimize the functional positioning of urban spaces based on the research outcomes.
6. I note the paper contains numerous figures, some of which are significantly blurred and require replacement with high-resolution versions. For example: Figures 9, 10, 11, and 12.
7. The paper includes a substantial number of tables and figures. For those deemed less essential, I recommend relocating them to the appendix to avoid excessive verbosity.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe research topic is very interesting, the methodology is clear and well explained, and the results are represented and described in relation to the research aim and context. Figures are visually innovative and show a lot, even without reading the text. I enjoyed reading.
What is the main question addressed by the research? The main question of the research is how consumption of environment, perception, and behavior impact each other in space and how they influence urban spaces and urban development, using a combination of data modeling and spatial analysis.
The topic is relevant and original in the field of behavior, planning, and spatial development. It specifically addresses a gap in understanding how urban spaces can transition from production-oriented to consumption-oriented environments, which is a new perspective, especially with the addition of perception-based modelling.
In future work, a few methodological improvements could be considered, such as integrating micro-level analysis-perceived safety… and better representation of behavioral data…
The conclusions are consistent with evidence and arguments presented in research.
The reference list is actual and relevant.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe study is innovative, with a well-designed methodology whose steps are clearly systematized, and the overall research is methodologically and structurally well organized. The paper is clear, coherent, and logically developed, with results that are consistent and, for the most part, expected. They align well with previous studies on consumer preferences, subjective perceptions in consumption, and consumer behavior.
While reading the paper, I found myself missing clear definitions of business consumption, sports consumption, and cultural consumption in this research, even though their meanings can be inferred from the context. I suggest that these concepts be explicitly defined at the beginning of the paper, as those notions can differ in studies and also across countries and regions of the world.
In addition, more precise information about the initial data sample would be useful—specifically, how the data were originally collected (e.g., through surveys, questionnaires, mobile phone tracking, or other methods), the sample size, and similar methodological details about initial data set.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe author has addressed my concerns, and I have no further comments.
