The Walkability-Oriented Linear Town: Values, Implementation in Practice, and the Suitability of the Hook Model for New Towns
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript presents findings on the suitability of the linear model for new towns. The paper covers an interesting topic.
However, there are some criticisms in the manuscript that must be addressed.
1.Extensive research has already been conducted on the linear model for new towns. However, this manuscript's literature review does not incorporate some of the latest research. Therefore, it is necessary to include some of the latest important literature.
2.The authors may consider restructure the introduction as: motivation/background-literature review-aim and contribution-organization of the remains of the study.
3.The discussion section is needed.
The authors should extend their thinking on the key analysis results and compare them with the relevant research results of other scholars to find similarities and differences between them.
4.The originality and novelty of the paper needs to be further improved and clarified. What is the theoretical innovation of this article? The description in the paper is relatively vague, and the author needs to provide a clearer explanation. The innovation of the manuscript should be reflected in dialogue with existing literature, with a particular focus on recent studies
5.Writing needs to be significantly improved.
Author Response
please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors- The case coverage is extremely single, and the universality of the conclusion cannot be supported at all
The manuscript only selects two towns in Israel (Karmiel and Harish) with highly homogeneous geographical, cultural, and planning backgrounds as case studies, both of which belong to the West Asian Mediterranean climate region under the influence of Western planning theory, and do not involve the practice of new cities with different geographical environments, cultural traditions, and development models in East Asia, Europe, America, and other regions. This design of "single region dual case" leads to research conclusions (linear models are not applicable to new cities) that cannot exclude regional specificity interference, lack cross contextual verification, and severely weaken universality, making it difficult to constitute an effective response to the global planning issue of "linear cities".
- The core argument lacks quantitative support, and the conclusion tends to be qualitative inference
The manuscript only relies on qualitative descriptions and subjective observations (such as "presenting a ghost town atmosphere") to support core conclusions such as "dispersed popularity of linear CBD" and "low to medium density cannot support commercial vitality", without providing any quantitative data to support them. Key variables such as the correlation between CBD length and store survival rate, the matching degree between population agglomeration speed and commercial vitality, the proportion of residents' travel modes, and the utilization rate of public spaces have not been statistically analyzed, resulting in a lack of empirical basis for the argument and a serious lack of persuasiveness in the conclusion, which does not meet the basic requirements of academic research that combines qualitative and quantitative methods.
- Serious lack of research dimensions and neglect of key influencing factors
The manuscript only focuses on the single dimension of "spatial form", completely ignoring the decisive impact of non spatial factors such as policy intervention, capital chain stability, public participation, and industry introduction on the implementation of linear programming. For example, the lack of analysis on the role of Israel's population policy and new city construction subsidies in promoting urban development, as well as the failure to explore the institutional reasons for Harish employment area's inability to attract industries, has resulted in a one-sided research framework that cannot fully explain the core contradiction of "planning and reality disconnect", and the conclusion is superficial.
- The proposed countermeasures lack practicality and greatly reduce their academic value
The alternative plan of "commercial service nodes+efficient transportation connectivity" proposed in the paper does not specify any feasible planning parameters: key information such as node spacing, radiation population size, functional combination ratio, transportation system selection (light rail/BRT/bus), and station layout density are missing. There is a lack of targeted renovation and optimization plans for existing linear new cities (such as Saudi Arabia's "The Line"), and the countermeasures cannot guide planning practice, nor have they formed a reusable theoretical model, resulting in a serious lack of academic and practical value.
- The cognitive lag in the contemporary evolution of linear cities and the argument for the existence of a disconnect from the times
The paper did not fully focus on the core innovations of contemporary linear cities, such as high-density development, intelligent technology application, and ecological corridor integration. It still criticized the "low to medium density, traditional forms" and had a serious cognitive disconnect with contemporary practices such as "The Line" in Saudi Arabia and the Copenhagen Axis Extension in Denmark. At the same time, the adaptability of linear models in specific scenarios (such as satellite cities in mega cities and new cities along transportation arteries) has not been explored, and the argument lacks a dialectical perspective. The conclusions are too absolute and do not meet the objectivity requirements of academic research.
Author Response
please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Initial general comments:
Relevant manuscript.
Regarding Abstract: RESEARCH OBJETIVE?
The article examines the new linear city’s conceptual evolution and the values it embodies.
RESEARCH QUESTION?
The main research question is whether there exist models that express the defining characteristics of the linear paradigm without relying on high-end technologies or mega-structures; and if so, how these characteristics are manifested on the ground.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY?
The methodology is an analysis of two linear towns established in Israel fifty years apart. Findings from both their planning and subsequent development reveal a range of interpretations of linear morphology shaped by the spirit of their respective eras and its encounter with real-life conditions. DISCUSSION?
The discussion shows that the “either–or” approach to urban planning, which characterized the earlier town, gave way to a more mature “both–and” perspective in the later one. Nevertheless, the article concludes that the linear model is ill-suited for new towns. Because they require many years to reach their intended population, extending the central business district (CBD) along the entire length of the town early on disperses human encounters and diminishes the urban experience. CONCLUSION?
Moreover, given new towns’ typically moderate construction densities, a long and narrow form does not generate a sufficiently large population base to sustain.
Overview: The introduction and conclusion sections leave much to be desired in terms of scientific aspects, lacking an adequate Literature Review section.
Detailed Comments on Manuscript Sections (emphasizing the “scientificity” of an international article).
Title: The Linear Fantasy: Examining the Suitability of the Linear Model for New Towns
- satisfactory / sufficient
- could include “subtitle” to facilitate reader understanding. Ex. Cities.
- could be revised according to the manuscript objective
Abstract: (See also above):
Unsatisfactory from a scientific methodological point of view
- lack of contextualization/presentation of the topic(s) or theme(s)
- lack of / reiteration of the research objective (making the objective “clear”)
- lack of / reiteration of the scientific research methodology
- lack of / reiteration of conclusion
Suggestion: rewrite the Abstract with a more scientific form
keywords: linear city model; new town; core business district (CBD); phased urban development; urbanity; communality; walkability
I suggest reviewing it, as there are many keywords that, and, are not included in the Research objective (which is not explicitly stated) and are also not present in the Analysis, Results, and Discussion section.
Introduction:
Unsatisfactory from a scientific methodological point of view. The Introduction section presents the themes (subsections 1.1 to 1.3), which is a very adequate contextualization, but it lacks the scientific content necessary for an Introduction section.
Furthermore, the Introduction section confuses the reader with concepts that should be in the Literature Review section.
For example, here are some recommendations:
- lack of reiterating research problems
- lack of reiteration of research question-problem
- lack of reiteration of manuscript objective (making the research objective “clear”)
- lack of reiteration of research justifications (or relevance)
- some paragraphs were “broken” (without links / concatenations / connections between them)
Suggestion: revise the entire Introduction with the above observations and rewrite parts of the texts with a more scientific connotation
Literature Review:
To think about: as a reviewer, I am aware that this Journal does not require (mandatory) a Literature Review Section. However, at least the CITATIONS and REFERENCES in the Introduction Section must be appropriate from the science point of view regarding the researched topics (including research objective, title and keywords), the current status of the Authors used as references, and in accordance with this Journal, which is a Q1 Scimago. With respect to this issue, I strongly make these suggestions:
- create Section Literature Review; and
- review these sentences:
- few authors, and no relevant national / no international references (even considering the contents of subsections 1.1 to 1.4), and some paragraphs was “broken” (without links / concatenations / connections between them), specially related to the research objective and respective keywords.
To remember: Literature Review demands/requires: concepts, descriptions, types, classifications, and approaches (without it: no is Literature Review).
Materials and Methods:
Despite the content of lines 265 to 304 (which is adequate), and respecting the author's style, it is still necessary to expand on the scientific aspects of this section, such as: (unsatisfactory from a scientific methodological point of view), example:
- lack of reiterate Research Method and respective Research Techniques
- lack of reiterate Research Phases
- lack of reiterate Observation Unit (documents or projects or websites or interviews or ...)
- lack of reiterate Research Sample characterization (research location)
- lack of reiterate “methodological procedures” and/or Research Protocol (or research criteria) and respective research variables
- lack of reiterate Research Period (time used for research)
Suggestion: reorganize and "name the parts or subsections" of the Research Methodology
Ok = Research Scope (what is the Research Coverage)
- Results: 3.1 Preliminary Planning
The content is adequate, I congratulate the author, however, according to the (existing) keywords and a research protocol with variables to be compared (non-existent), this subsection is insufficient.
Suggestion: create keywords or common variables to compare the 2 cities.
3.2 Urban Development
Same observations and suggestions as 3.1.
- Discussion:
- lack of reiterate comparative analyzes between themes or constructs or subthemes
- lack of reiterate comparative analyzes between research locations (cities or organizations or etc.)
- lack of reiterate summary of Research Results.
The content of lines 554 and 626 should be called "Results," which is essentially correct, provided that the content of Section 3 is adjusted. I congratulate the author once again.
Conclusion:
Could be the Conclusion in the singular, like as in the Introduction
Unsatisfactory from a scientific methodological point of view:
- lack of reiterate “contextualization with Section 1. Introduction
- failed to reiterate “rescue or closing with research objectives” /
- lack of reiterate summary of results obtained
- lack of reiterate contributions, example: for research location (city, prefecture, or organizations);
to the management of (city, prefecture, or organizations); to academia or to relevant studies or science; to the research topic (or line of research, and key-words) and contributions to citizens (society) and urban managers or public or private managers
- lack of reiterate of the research limitations (scientific limitations)
- could include future works or additions to be explored.
The Conclusion is very fragile, it needs to be rewritten with a scientific connotation, including the connection with the Introduction.
References:
Despite the number of References, some are outdated and unrelated to the research objective and keywords.
Suggestion: review.
Consider References to this Journal, as well as to this Publisher.
ENGLISH
It is always possible to improve with a native review.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
It is always possible to improve with a native review.
Author Response
please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper concerns urban development. The research issue is relevant and the paper is interesting.
Despite some strengths, the current version of the paper requires some improvements.
The first issue regards the research contextualisation. In my opinion, the investigated problem is general and it can be translated to other contexts, for instance, for the new town near the big transport infrastructures (ports, railway stations, ...). Some authors investigated "external interactions for a third generation port" by considering the evolution "from urban sustainable planning to research developments"
The second issue regards the methodology. Please clarify the main steps in order to generalise the proposed appoach
The third and final issue regards the conclusions. Please, support the conclusions with some quantitative evaluations.
Finally, please checks grammatical errors and typos
Author Response
please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper titled "The Linear Fantasy: Examining the Suitability of the Linear Model for New Towns" touches very interesting topic, however needs some improvements.
- Line 267: I suggest to add name of the country when cities are listed. It's not obvious for non Israel readers
- Line 313 (and others) I suggest to add number of current inhabitant here and to other studied cities. It will give difference between planned and real numbers. Also some comment about difference between planned and current numbers should be added. If current number is lover then planned some explanation of this situation is also needed.
- I'm confused about discussion and conclusion chapters. Discussion should contain main results compared to previous studies, Conlcusion should contain authors thoughts/recommendations/conclusions in studied topic. I suggest to rearrange those chapters
Good luck with the paper!
Author Response
please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI appreciate the revisions made by the authors. And the manuscript has significantly improved. However, the coverage of the latest literature remains insufficient. I suggest the authors further supplement the manuscript by fully considering and incorporating recently published studies.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe author has responded to the review comments, but the quality of the manuscript still needs further improvement.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe new version partially clarifies the paper's contents. In line with the new version, I suggest the authors consider "a review methodology of sustainable urban mobility plans: Objectives and actions to promote cycling and pedestrian mobility"
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
