TOD Zoning Planning: Floor Area Ratio Attenuation Rate and Center Migration Trajectory

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper takes Chengdu as a case study to analyze the development intensity attenuation patterns of multiple TOD stations and proposes a corresponding spatial optimization model, demonstrating certain innovativeness. To facilitate the successful publication of this article, the authors are advised to revise the manuscript by addressing the following issues:

1. The current literature review mainly focuses on the definition and scope of TOD, as well as a general overview of research progress. However, it lacks a systematic synthesis of previous studies that are directly related to the core research focus. The authors should expand the literature review by incorporating key topics such as TOD development intensity design, inner and outer zone distinction, quantitative analysis methods, and optimization strategies. This will better contextualize the research objectives and highlight its contributions.

2. The introduction does not clearly state the core research question - why it is necessary to study the latitudinal decay of FAR (floor area ratio) in TOD. Much of the discussion remains conceptual or procedural, without identifying research gaps in existing research. For example, the study examines the interaction between built environment and FAR, but it should clearly state which research gaps this work addresses.

3. Before building a correlation model between FAR and other built environment indicators, the authors should test for multicollinearity between variables to enhance the robustness of the model.

4. Although this paper explores the evolution of development intensity around railway stations, the time scope remains unclear. The authors must clearly state the study period (e.g., start and end years) in the research framework and data description sections.

5. The final section introduces the TOD optimization model and strategies, but their derivation lacks clarity. To avoid a disconnect between the analysis and conclusions, the authors should include a schematic diagram that illustrates how these optimization methods were developed.

6. The study examined 30 stations, but the rationale for their selection was not fully justified. Although the guidelines of the Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development were referenced, the connection to the specific context of Chengdu was unclear. The authors should elaborate on the rationale for the site selection by considering Chengdu's rail transit network structure, regional differences, and station operation hours.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,
Detailed comments and suggestions for improving the clarity, analytical depth, and presentation of the study can be found in the attached report.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents detailed analysis of floor area Ratio attenuation rate and center
migration trajectory within transit-oriented development planning. I must say that the graphs and maps are well made and, although packed with information, readable and clear. In this regard I have one minor issue with many abbreviations. I had a search on while reading the manuscript so I could be reminded of the meaning of some. I recommend putting the full name even in the abstract so it will be easier to read. I recommend using full names of variables whenever possible, especially in legends or figure names. If you take Figure 11. “247” zoning planning diagram, for example, I had to scroll up and down 5 times (and I must state here that I think the figure is a great representation of conclusion and 247 zoning). In general, I think this is a great manuscript with interesting results. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study uses corridor effect analysis and regional center offset analysis to investigate the spatial development characteristics of TOD stations while exploring the multi-level factors influencing the zone planning of selected stations. By examining the differentiated development patterns across various types of TOD areas, this study highlights the specific spatial impacts of development. It further reinforces the understanding of the multi-factor driving mechanisms behind urban land use and TOD evolution. The approach  through analyzing changes in floor area ratios across multi-level urban zones demonstrates a high degree of innovation.

Overall, the research work of this study is relatively complete, but I have the following comments.

1. Research gap (Line 166-177) should be included in INTRODUCTION rather than LITERATURE REVIEW.
2. Line 188 states that the range of the station area starts from 100 meters. What exactly is the maximum range? The subsequent research results have explained the scope of different levels, so please complete it in the description of STUDY AREA.
3. During the process of station selection, as shown in Figure 2, it is evident that the area maps of certain stations overlap. My question is regarding the calculation of building data and floor area ratio within these overlapping zones. How should these shared areas be accounted for in terms of spatial statistics and urban development analysis? The evaluation criteria for urban development in overlapping areas need to be clarified. And the scale of the circular zones in Figure 2 is unclear. What is the radius in meters? The legend lacks clarity and should be revised to improve interpretability.
4. According to line 279, the study defines the development center as the central aggregation point of architectural elements within the zone. The development center has shifted over time due to changes in building construction during different periods. It remains unclear whether this part of the analysis incorporates building data across multiple temporal dimensions. Additional explanation is needed to clarify whether time-series data was used to support the findings on spatial shifts.
5. In DISCUSSION, the content appears largely to reiterate the research results, with limited analytical depth.
6. CONCLUSION lacks a clear explanation of the practical contributions and potential applications of the study. Clarify how the findings can serve as a reference for urban planning, TOD strategies, or policy formulation in Chengdu or other cities.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,
Thank you for your careful attention in revising the manuscript in accordance with the suggestions and questions raised. The changes and clarifications included in the new version of the article have significantly improved it.