Exploring the Spatial Distribution Mechanisms of Restaurants Across Different Urban Morphologies: A Macau Case Study Using Space Syntax and Big Data

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is a novel contribution and adds value to the field. However, at 28 pages, it feels longer (and more detailed) than needed. The section on various measurements and correlations ought to be condensed. Perhaps some data (and or analysis) can be placed in a separate file and archived with the paper as supplementary data? Also, likely it has too many figures. Could some of the 22 figures be omitted? Or moved to a supplementary data file?

The article ought to be more integrated in the literature on commercial streets, urban vibrancy, and urban planning / urban design. E.g. Vikas Mehta has discussed some of these same questions (with fewer statistical correlations and more urban design inferences) in “The Street” (2013) and in articles published in JPER and JUD. I would delete the Example Establishments column in Table 3. It appears almost like a marketing gimmick (many scholarly journals prohibit disclosing commercial brands in published papers – Does LAND have such a protocol?

The abstract states “balanced” and later in the paper “balanced competitive environment” – this does not seem to be correct. Please rethink it because the organic urban morphology (walk-only precincts) is likely to be safer (less to no vehicular traffic and less dangerous for pedestrians) and more conducive to enjoying public spaces and patronizing adjacent businesses than the grid-based morphological areas.

The article likely needs to acknowledge the hybridity of food in Macau, with a fusion of Portuguese/European and Chinese/Asian restaurants. The role of restaurants catering mostly to tourists ought to be slightly more emphasized. In the methodology, it would be also helpful to clarify how the authors dealt with food courts and restaurants in shopping centers, casinos, and resorts.

This reviewer doubts that “catering industry” is the correct term to refer to the types of establishments analyzed in the paper. Generally, it denotes a company that provides prepared food for events, which would exclude restaurants and bars where people go to eat and drink. A note clarifying and or placing the establishments within the context of HORECA, a term utilized extensively in Europe, (Hotel, Restaurant, and Café/Catering) is highly suggested. In the US, restaurants, bars, and other similar businesses generally fall under the “food and drink” category within the hospitality industry.

Lls.748-749: “relationship between street patterns and commercial vitality.” - Is it vitality or vibrancy? Please consult: Yang et al. “Differences in Urban Vibrancy Enhancement among Different Mixed Land Use Types” as well as “Commercial Revitalization Vibrancy (CRV) theory” in Balsas “Exciting walk-only precincts in Asia, Europe and North-America”.

Lls.241-242 – authors ought to disclose their sample size by stating what % of total eligible businesses do these values represent.

Macau’s narrow streets are not very conducive to driving cars. The paper is silent on the high number of scooters in Macau and how that is directly related to patronizing restaurants. A brief explanation of what happened with takeout and delivery food during the pandemic would be helpful. NACH within vehicular range – vehicular is a dubious term. Table 1 refers to cars. Vehicles may also potentially include scooters (light motorcycles), of which there are many in Macau. Were scooters taken into consideration in the analysis?

Sub-section “3.1.2. Spatial Visualization Analysis Results in Organically-Shaped Areas (the Avenida de Horta e Costa area and the Avenida de Almeida Ribeiro area)” – to what extent does the study account for the presence of walk-only precincts (Doi:10.1016/j.cities.2021.103129); this subsection refers to interconnected streets.

Fig 11 shows two different legends (number of reviews, and (in small font size) number of restaurants? Is the latter a mistake?) – The same comment applies to figure 13.

“Figures n and n show” this is certainly a mistake; please correct it. Thank you.

“However, functional buildings such as schools or enclosed facilities may act as "dams," obstructing resource flow.” – this conclusion may not be accurate as it does not result from the preceding statistical analysis. “Functional buildings” such as shopping centers and “schools” with their own “food courts” and canteens may have reduced visibility from the street and be perceived as potentially less accessible to passers-by, but this reviewer disagrees that they obstruct resource flow.

“Cultural layer networks” and "living spaces" would benefit from a reference to direct readers to additional resources on these topics.

Legend of figures are too small and unreadable – this needs to be fixed (fig.5, 10, 11, 17, 22, etc.).

The paper ought to acknowledge that newer grid-street areas are likely to steal businesses away from more established (organic) areas. Please consult “Exciting walk-only precincts in Asia, Europe and North-America”.

The aim is to optimizing urban commercial layouts and achieving refined spatial management, but mostly from the perspective of “rapidly urbanizing areas, providing scientific evidence for optimizing commercial streets and achieving sustainable urban development” (l.808). The paper ought to expand a bit more on the regeneration and promotion of vibrant commercial areas in organically-based urban morphological areas (such as historic districts).

“all correlation coefficients are harmful in the NAPE area” this needs to be revised – is harmful the correct word?

The notions of “global scale” and “local scale” in the example: “high global or local-scale network accessibility” and elsewhere likely need to be better defined/clarified.

Add a notation (in Chinese) to references: 4, 25, 27.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely thank you for your insightful and constructive comments, which have significantly enhanced the quality of our manuscript and provided valuable inspiration for our future research endeavors. Your detailed guidance has left a profound impression on us, and we are deeply moved by the thoroughness and precision of your suggestions. With heartfelt respect, we have carefully revised our manuscript, guided by your invaluable advice, which we will always cherish.

A detailed response to each of your suggestions has been included in the attached document. We humbly invite you to review our revisions and kindly provide further guidance. Wishing you and your family happiness and success in all endeavors.

With our deepest gratitude,
Ling-Lin ZHANG, Po-Hsun WANG, Jun-Ling ZHOU, Yu-Lin ZHAO

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper proposes using space syntax and big data to evaluate the impact of grid and organic street patterns, considering the spatial distribution of restaurants. Although the results were presented in the Abstract, it is recommended that the contributions of the paper, including the methodology role, be made clearer. Also, it would be interesting to explain the means of “space syntax.”
Introduction
The Introduction gives a reader a good explanation of the theme related to the paper. Space syntax and urban morphology were described in one paragraph each, which included some references. However, the authors could have spent more time presenting past studies before this paper.
Line 82-84 the author affirm that various studies concentrate the effort to functional zoning analysis, but the studies weren’t mentioned.
Also, the section containing the literature review is require, making a review about the past paper and highlight the contribution of the paper.
Methodology
Please, the author would be describing the framework presented and referenced in 4 and 23. Also, justify the used of this framework. So, it is application of the framework?
The ‘theoretical framework’ mentioned in 4 – Spatial Theory need more details. Maybe this a strong contribution of the paper, but few line make vagueness.
2.1.1 Data sources: How was the data from Google Maps processed?
The authors present a methodology with all steps and describe how and when they were developed. However, it is necessary to restructure the steps with the explanations in followers. First, Figure 1 shows the framework that accomplishes the role of the paper. However, the ‘Specific procedures’ do not fit with the presentation in Figure 1. Then, I suggested a figure or diagram with the data flow, gathering data, and processing.
Line 686. ‘Figure n and  n‘ must be corrected
Figure 14 must be updated.
Figure 19-22, the letters present low resolution.
In general, the results presented ensure the quality of the findings proposed. However, the problem of the methodology is repeated. It is necessary to make clear the steps to show the founds.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We extend our deepest gratitude to you for your insightful and precise feedback, which has profoundly enriched our manuscript. Your sharp observations and profound understanding have provided us with invaluable guidance, offering clarity and inspiration that will undoubtedly influence our future research endeavors.

Your comments reflect a deep expertise that we hold in the highest regard, and they have greatly refined our perspective on this study. We have carefully addressed all your suggestions, as detailed in the attached response document.

We sincerely thank you again for your rigorous and thoughtful review, and we look forward to any further guidance you may have.Wishing you and your family happiness and success.

With our deepest appreciation,
Ling-Lin ZHANG, Po-Hsun WANG, Jun-Ling ZHOU, Yu-Lin ZHAO

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for making various corrections to the original manuscript.

While several corrections are welcome, others are not and amount to careless neglect, lack of conceptual rigor, and potential fabrication.

The authors decided to replace the catering industry with the “F&B industry”. This is an unwelcome and inadequate change as food and beverages range from individual food items sold at markets and grocery stores to cooked meals served in a variety of outlets. The same can be said about the beverages part of the “F&B industry”, which range the gamut from big and small drink producers and distributors to drinks sold at the local conner snack bar.

If the authors agree that urban vibrancy is more appropriate than vitality and changed it throughout the whole manuscript, why didn’t they cite any of the suggested critical sources on the topic of commercial vibrancy?

The revision is flawed because the original submission contemplated only cars (table 1 utilized the expression “By Car”; and now the authors claim that their analysis included scooters and have changed the “By Car” with “Motorized Travel” – to which this reviewer asks: does it include buses as well?). The words scooter and bus were never mentioned in the original submission. Moreover, the authors claim that “Macau’s traffic regulations prohibit the use of bicycles on public streets”. This is false as bicycles are forbidden only on public sidewalks.

Where does the spatial syntax model account for closed-off streets to vehicular traffic? The authors acknowledge that “some streets in Macau’s historical core are indeed closed to vehicular traffic due to their narrow width”, and, in fact, most of those streets are in the historic district located adjacent to the Avenida de Almeida Ribeiro. While pedestrians have uniform access through closed-off streets, with the exception of emergency vehicles, regular motorized vehicles  are forbidden from entering the walk-only street network through the use of urban design measures.

This reviewer disagrees with the authors claim that “nearly all streets with restaurant distributions in this area accommodate both pedestrian and vehicular traffic.” Is this one more oversight, of which the authors have acknowledged quite a high number of them in their response to the reviewers, or a blatant mistake, similar to the attempt at purposefully changing cars to motorized vehicle in Table 1 to also now include scooters? The comment that “the paper ought to acknowledge that newer grid-street areas are likely to steal businesses away from more established (organic) areas” was to be taken seriously by the authors. However, it is their prerogative not to acknowledge it in the manuscript.

It is a pity though that the authors decided to proceed without it, in spite of readily embracing the comment regarding “the regeneration and promotion of vibrant commercial areas in organically-based urban morphological areas (such as historic districts).”

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely appreciate your dedicated time and effort in reviewing our manuscript. Your insightful and constructive feedback has played a crucial role in refining our study, and we are grateful for the clarity and depth your comments have brought to our work.

Building on your valuable suggestions, we have carefully revised the manuscript to address the points raised. The attached document includes a detailed response to each comment. We welcome any further feedback you may have and truly appreciate your continued guidance in strengthening our research.

Once again, thank you for your thoughtful review and for helping us enhance the quality of our work. We greatly value your expertise and the time you have devoted to this process. Wishing you all the best in your academic and professional endeavors.

With our deepest gratitude,

Ling-Lin ZHANG, Po-Hsun WANG, Jun-Ling ZHOU, Yu-Lin ZHAO

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

n/a