Public Space Optimization Strategy Through Social Network Analysis in Shenzhen’s Gongming Ancient Fair

Reviewer’s comments

Authors’ responses

1.      

The presentation of the area as a case study needs more information by giving at least the criteria defining the different limits mentioned.

Thank you for the insightful and constructive comments provided by the reviewer. The authors thank for the positive comments and have paid attention to the critique and suggestions.

The paper has supplemented and updated the scope of case study on page 4 from LINE 170 to LINE 171, along with additional historical development processes of the research subjects from LINE 176 to LINE 184.

2.      

The formulas presented in the paper look as abstract.

The paper has deleted original Formula 1, 2 and 3 that appeared less relevant to subsequent content, retaining only original Formula 4 to explain the seemingly contradictory relationship between small-world quotient values and other metrics in public space networks on LINE 293.

3.      

The literature review deserves to be developed by looking at an eventual correlation between the public space optimization and the social network analysis.

The paper has added literature on page 4 from LINE 149 to LINE 159, regarding the correlation between public space optimization and social network analysis in historical district spaces.

4.      

Concerning the methodology used, the process needs more development, and the different charts presented should be commented whether in terms of their construction (How, When...,etc.) or the results. Once again, the paper will gain by looking at the correlation between the different charts.

The paper has deleted methodology-related charts that were disconnected from subsequent content and other figures. Currently retained charts in Figure 3 on LINE 224, which including basic demographic information of surveyed residents, charts in Figure 4 on LINE 228, which including existing public activity patterns, and Figure 5 on LINE 230, which including desired additional activities/spaces, maintain direct relevance to later research sections.

5.      

Some figures are mentioned in the text but unavailable in the paper (Figure 7 or 10 as example).

The paper has modified the Figure 1 to Figure 12.

6.      

For the discussion, I do suggest constructing a matrix (the nodes in the columns and the criteria mentioned as Network Metric in the rows). The matrix will be interpreted looking at the recommendation per row or per column.

The paper has added Figure 10, which visualizes the contents of Table 2 and Table 7 through bar charts to enable more intuitive comparative analysis.

7.      

Some paragraphs need to be rewritten in short sentences.

The structure and syntax of some sentences need to be rewritten as they may look as a conceptual translation.

The paper has been already edited by the English experts.

Reviewer’s comments

Authors’ responses

1.      

- Literature Review: The literature review, while adequate in summarizing local scholarship, would benefit from more direct citation of international research on (SNA) in urbanism. Where it is noted by reviewing what was mentioned in the research under the title of "literature review" that all previous research and studies that were reviewed were for regions in China only, which raises a question, is this type of urban studies related to social network analysis only done in China, hoping to clarify to justify why examples were not presented from other countries and geographical regions across the world, perhaps there is something different in it to benefit from in the case of studying in China as well, where the international urban informatics publications could provide a valuable theoretical basis. In addition, the authors could position their research better within contemporary debates.

Thank you for the insightful and constructive comments provided by the reviewer. The authors thank for the positive comments and have paid attention to the critique and suggestions. The authors have studied the comments carefully and have addressed them one-by-one to provide the following responses; these are self-explanatory.

The paper has supplemented relevant research from other countries in Part 2 from LINE 83 to LINE 86 and from LINE 149 to LINE 159, which embodying the current lack of social network analysis (SNA) applications in historical district space studies.

2.      

- Depth of Discussion: Despite the demographic analysis of the sample of respondents (in Part 3. 1. 1), the discussion afterwards, through the case study and results (Part 5), did not go into depth to include many of the points that could be raised through that, where the discussion may delve further into the social implications of spatial mismatches — i.e., how some nodes may exclude or deter specific user groups (e.g., women, the elderly, children....) and etc., I hope to clarify that.

Irrelevant charts in the original Part 3.1.1 have been deleted.

Additionally, deeper discussions have been added in Parts 6.2.2 from LINE 460 to LINE 465 and 6.2.3 from LINE 471 to LINE 472，which is “The spaces of Node 16 and Node 17 primarily exhibit a mismatch between the childcare needs of middle-aged and young women with children and the fitness demands of sports-oriented residents, resulting in these spatial configurations hindering the activities of both young and middle-aged mothers with children and exercise-seeking populations.” “According to survey findings, most residents predominantly utilize outdoor leisure spaces during evening hours.” and “which has effectively obstructed activities for nearly all population groups”.

3.      

- Depth of Discussion: Through discussion, Part 6.3, entitled " Enhancement of Public Activity Organization," appears superficial and straightforward in its approach. We believe that one of the most important parts that requires deeper discussion and reframing by researchers to clarify and explain these public activities that meet various needs, as the researchers have indicated.

The paper has added relevant content in Part 6.3 on page 17 from LINE 486 to LINE 501 by differentiating daily activities from festival activities, supported by additional literature.

4.      

- Figures: Some of the Figures' numbers (from Figures 8 to 12) appear incorrect. Although the attribution to these Figures within the text is correct, the numbering below these images is incorrect and contains repetitions of what came before, so I hope for correction.

The numbers of original Figures 8 to 12 have been corrected.

5.      

- Figures: It appears that some of the lines for the color keys within some Figures (especially Figures 5, 6, 8, 9 and 10) appear to be cluttered and low-resolution. Perhaps its colors also need explicit contrast (as in Figure 6 specifically). Making them more readable, perhaps by scaling down labels or breaking into sub-figures — would make it easier to read.

The study has modified the figures, particularly Figures 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, and 9. Redrawn elements include study area boundaries in Figures 1, partial graphical lines in Figures 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, and legends to enhance the readability in Figures 3, 4, 9.

6.      

It is strange to use the expression "Research on" at the beginning of title of scientific research paper. The title should immediately be "Public Space Optimization Strategy in Shenzhen's Gongming Ancient Fair through Social Network Analysis."

This was also repeated through the title of paragraph (2.1.)

"2.1. Research on Public Space Optimization Strategy in Ancient Fair".

Therefore, we recommend a comprehensive linguistic review by a specialist.

The titles have been modified into “Public Space Optimization Strategy through Social Network Analysis in Shenzhen's Gongming Ancient Fair.”on LINE 2, and the title of paragraph (2.1.) have been modified into “2.1. Public Space Optimization Strategy in Ancient Fair.” on LINE 87.

The paper has been already edited by the English experts.

Reviewer’s comments

Authors’ responses

1.      

The bibliographic references are not numbered sequentially: you go from reference 8 to 11. We need, in between, the references 9 and 10. Please correct this; you have only referenced in the text until reference 19, the following, which appear in the bibliography, are not used in the text, please remove them. I strongly suggest the use of a bibliographic management software so that this kind of thing does not happen as often.

The authors thank for the insightful and constructive comments provided by the reviewer. The authors have studied the comments carefully and have addressed them one-by-one to provide the following responses; these are self-explanatory.

The paper utilized references 9 and 10.

Uncited literature has been deleted, and additional references have been incorporated to enhance the research content between LINE 523 to LINE 593.

2.      

Chapters 2 and 3, which have subchapters, do not have any introductory text: why should chapter 5 and 6? Either they all have or none. We have to maintain uniformity in the text in the text.

Introductory texts have been added to related chapters, which is Chapter 2 from LINE 83 to LINE 86 and Chapter 4 from LINE 201 to LINE 207, to maintain structural consistency with Chapters 5 and 6.

3.      

Neither the tables nor the figures have credits. They should have. Who drew them?

The name of the drawers for tables and figure have been supplemented.

4.      

Line 98, paragraph 2. You referred to Huang J. W. et al. in the text, but there is no Huang J. W. in the bibliography. Please, whenever you mention the name of the author, put the reference in front. For example, line 94, paragraph 2: Tong D. et al. [3]. Thus, there is no confusion, since there are many references to which can be attributed the reference Huang J. et al., for example. Please correct this throughout the text. I noticed that you put the reference at the end of the paragraph, but it seems to me more obvious if it is immediately after the name of the first author.

Author names in references have been revised.

In-text citations have been adjusted to immediately follow author names between LINE 91 and LINE 159.

5.      

Paragraph 3.1.1. In the sample presented in this paragraph, it is only necessary to make a difference between genders. It is common knowledge that the two genres have different perspectives on the same subject. I think it would be more complete if there was also a gender analysis.

Part 5.4 on page 13 the paper has added deeper analysis between LINE 386 and LINE 401. As the public activities conducted on site are mostly conducted by female groups, more than 80% of the interviewees are female. Therefore, the node space optimization strategies of the paper is mostly for the interview content of female interviewees.

6.      

Figure 1, paragraph 3. In this figure, there are captions that are incomplete. For example: in figure 1.a), we have 4 divisions in the chart, but in the legend, it only refers to 2; in figure 1.b) there are 14 divisions and 10 in the legend. I also suggest that in the legend of all figures, you put the percentage, because there are very similar colors and they are difficult to distinguish. Another thing: the legend of the figure should be immediately after the figure but on the same page. Please correct this.

Charts in Figure 3 and Figure 4 have been modified with the percentage following the legend.

 Figure 3 , 4 and the legend of them have been placed on the same page.

7.      

Figure 3, paragraph 3. In figure 3.g) I calculate that the fact of having 5 categories and only 3 divisions appear in the legend and in the graph is due to the fact that the remaining two are null. IS that so? Again, if you put the percentage value in front of each category in the legend, it will make these figures more readable. Another thing: the legend of the figure should be immediately after the figure but on the same page. Please correct this. Thank you.

Figure 4.d have been supplied all legend.

Charts in Figure 3 and Figure 4 have been modified with the percentage following the legend.

 Figure 3 , 4 and the legend of them have been placed on the same page.

8.      

Lines 230-232, paragraph 3. There is no reference to equations 1, 2 and 3 in the text and it’s also not explicit how you get the data to use them, at least I didn’t find that.

Equations 1, 2 and 3 have been deleted.

9.      

Line 257, paragraph 3. Equation (4) is not with the same indentation as the previous ones. Please homogenize everything.

The format of original Equations 4 has been adjusted on line 293.

10.   

Line 263, paragraph 4. This section, case study, should come before the methodology. It is not in the right place of the article, because before, a map of the zone under study had already been presented, which does not make sense.

The case study section has been moved on LINE 167 to improve logical coherence.

11.   

Line 290, paragraph 5. Table 1’s caption must be in the same page as the table itself. Please correct this.

Original table 1 has been deleted.

12.   

Line 290, paragraph 5. The introductory text is not explicitly related to the contents of the table. Whoever reads the introduction does not easily relate the contents of the table. Moreover, in relation to name of the subsequent titles, it is also not explicit their relationship with the table and with the introductory text. Please improve this aspect.

Original table 1 has been deleted without affecting the article's content integrity.

13.   

Table 2, paragraph 5. In the titles of table 2, the symbols used in the formulas should be placed, if they exist. For example, in the last column, SW should be added. This makes it easier to view the relationship between formulas/tables/values. Please review all tables and make this correction.

SW has been added in the last column in Table 1, 3 and 6.

14.   

Line 323, paragraph 5. The Figure’s caption is wrong: is Figure 8 and not 1. It is correct in the text. This is also happening with Figure 9, which is not 2… Please correct this all over the text

The Figures’ captions have been corrected all over the text.

15.   

Line 395, Paragraph 6. In the Figure, supposedly 3, I don’t understand what the black line represents. Please put in the legend

The black line has been put in the legend in Figure 9.

16.   

In the bibliography I would like to know why the date of some publications is bold and others not. Are there any criteria for this? If not, please correct this to be uniform.

All the publications have been turned into bold to be uniform according to the reference format of the jounal of “LAND”.