Spatial Vitality Assessment of Urban Post-Industrial Landscapes Using Multi-Source Data: A Case Study of Beijing Shougang Park
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis study focuses on the “spatial vitality assessment of post-industrial landscapes,” integrating multi-source data for empirical analysis. The overall structure and logic of the manuscript are relatively clear. However, before acceptance, I have several concerns that may help the authors improve the quality of the manuscript. First, in the abstract, I suggest that the authors include some interesting quantitative results, as this would better inform readers of the study’s contributions. In the introduction (lines 85–88), I recommend that the authors avoid overemphasizing spatial quality at the urban scale. The following references may be helpful: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127381 https://doi.org/10.1177/23998083241304258 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2025.104586 Furthermore, at the end of the introduction, it seems that the manuscript does not clearly distinguish itself from existing research on “big data-based spatial vitality assessment,” nor does it explain the specific applicability of the proposed framework in the context of post-industrial landscapes. In the methods section (lines 170–182), I believe this part would be more appropriate in the introduction or literature review. Additionally, in lines 175–178, space syntax has also been applied to study the relationship between space and human emotions, for example: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jort.2025.100864. Within the methods section, the authors should clarify why spatial accessibility, functional diversity, heritage openness, and crowd dynamics are treated as parallel indicators, and explain their weighting and rationale. Otherwise, the methodology might appear arbitrary, wouldn’t it? In Table 2, definitions and explanations of the indicators should be added. For instance, the definition of “heritage openness” is rather vague. In the results section, my concern is that it mainly presents visual interpretation and indicator listing. Is there a lack of significance testing or spatial autocorrelation analysis? In the discussion section, I suggest that the authors include a limitations subsection. For example, in section 3.3.1, only two dates (Wednesday and Sunday) were selected, with updates every four hours, which is insufficient to capture daily fluctuations or seasonal variations, thereby limiting the representativeness of the findings. In addition, the discussion should be enriched by comparing the findings with international research on “cultural-driven vitality enhancement” or “community participation” in post-industrial landscape regeneration. Some minor comments: First, some numerical values and scales in the figures are difficult to read, such as in Figures 3, 4, 6, and 7. Moreover, in Figures 6 and 7, the figure captions appear misaligned and are not positioned directly below the figures. Second, in terms of academic writing, the manuscript repeatedly uses expressions such as “this study” and “the results show,” which read more like a project report than a journal article. Finally, many of the references, such as [4], [5], [6], [11], [14], [15], [46], and [47], are not easily retrievable in common international databases such as Google Scholar. For an international journal, I strongly recommend that the authors engage in a more systematic dialogue with the international literature.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThia paper is generally ok and is clearly put together. Just a few things to address:
L 64, 66, delete the initial for authors
fig 2 not clear what you mean by scope of services delineation
Results need to be a bit clearer, fig 3 and 4 look the same
fig 6,7,8, indicate where on the map the 4 photos refer to
Please check the fig captions, they are not sitting with the figures
Discussion needs to refer to the literature, you do not compare your results with previous studies
l 555 reference missing
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDespite the interesting topics and the hard work of the authors, the submitted manuscript is not yet ready for publication due to the lack of a strong connection between the problem statement, study purpose, study method, results, discussion, and conclusion. I added specific comments and suggestions below; please use them for revision.
- 31-35. The sentence is redundant and too long. Condense it into 2–3 lines. Is “post-industrial landscape” different from “brownfield”? The authors also used similar terms (e.g., industrial wastelands, abandoned sites, and brownfields) throughout the manuscript. I think “brownfield” is the most common term. Please define it and use a single consistent term.
- L. 48. Is there a difference between “post-industrial landscape parks,” “post-industrial landscapes,” and “post-industrial parks”?
- 54-57. This sentence is somewhat vague and unclear. The point the authors want to deliver is hard to understand.
- 69-70. What does “relevant outcomes” mean? Please clarify.
- 77-79. This statement must be supported by specific examples and cases.
- 86-93. These are general functions of green space in urbanized areas but are not specifically related to the spatial vitality of brownfields.
- 94-96. Need references and examples.
- 99-106. I do not fully agree with these statements. GIS technology has been widely used in site and regional analysis for decades. The lack of GIS technology, I think, is unlikely to be responsible for the low spatial vitality of regenerated brownfields. Please provide examples of the “theoretical support” that GIS can offer. Also, define “traditional mechanistic approaches.”
- 111-116. The study purposes are not clearly stated. The reason of the problem is the absence of a clear problem statement. The issues of assessing sites and connecting spatial quality with spatial and social attributes in revitalizing post-industrial sites should be fully discussed before presenting the study purposes.
L.118-122. Justify the reasons for choosing “Beijing Shougang Park North” as the study site. This paragraph seems more suitable for the “Study Purposes” part of the Introduction section. I strongly recommend to consider removing it.
- 123-145. Based on the description, the sub-section title “2.1. Study site and service areas” would be better than “2.1. Study area.” Justify why you choose the two travel-time distances (15 min and 30 min). In similar studies, a 1-hour walking distance is more commonly used. Also, explain why you used both “isochrone accessibility” and “topological accessibility” (Line 183). In the table, you might avoid the term “accessibility” because it has numerous definitions; at this stage, simply referring to ‘service areas’ and ‘populations’ are enough. Provide the developer of the DepthmapX software, and check all other software used in this study.
- 168-250. Explain the “constructs” (in the Introduction section) and “variables” (in the Method section) of the study. You have provided multiple variables in this section, but it is unclear why you measured them because there is no section explaining about ‘study construct’ and ‘variables’ in the study methods. For example, it is not clear how “spatial vitality” is defined in this study. Also, justify why you chose these variables for the constructs. I do not understand why these variables are explained in “2.3. Research Methods.”
*Figures and Captions should be arranged together. There should be no body text between them.
- 352-368. The Spatial Facility Mix Index (SFMI) should be explained in the Method section, not in the Results section.
* Many parts of the Results and Discussion sections are difficult to understand. This is mainly because the study purposes and research methods are not clearly stated. There should be a clear logical flow from the problem statement to the study purpose, Method (including constructs and variables used), Results, Discussion, and Conclusion.
*All captions of Figures should be more informative and ‘source: authors’ should be removed from captions.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI greatly appreciate the authors’ efforts and time devoted to revising the manuscript. The overall logic concerning urban post-industrial landscapes and the quantitative approach has been clarified well. I therefore have only a few minor suggestions. First, in the revised version, there appears to be an import error in Reference 24, where the authors seem to have been confused or misattributed. Second, it is good that the authors have moved the space syntax content from the Methods to the Introduction. I would, however, suggest sharpening the wording: for example, in lines 115–117 the text notes the method’s application to “community space” and then to “space,” which is ambiguous—what space precisely? Please be more specific, for instance by referring to human affective well-being in relation to blue spaces. This reference may be helpful: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2025.103632.
Third, in Section 2.3, the explanatory text following each equation might be better set in lower case and without starting a new paragraph (see lines 201, 212, 225, 241). Finally, some labels in Figure 9 are difficult to read, and the numerals on the scale bar in Figure 10 should be enlarged.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI think the authors have made considerable improvements and responded appropriately to my previous comments. However, I still do not fully understand how this study is potentially important to readers in other countries (a global issue) beyond China (a local issue).
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
