Measuring Vitality and Spatial Efficiency of Public Spaces in Commercial Complexes: A Multi-Source Data-Driven Analysis in Guangzhou, China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe study presents an interesting multi-source approach to the evaluation of public space in commercial complexes, combining several data-driven scientific methodologies. This topic is relevant to the overall topic of the Land journal regarding urban regeneration, land usage, and spatial morphology in high-density urban areas such as Guangzhou, China.
A clear definition and perception of public space vitality are needed in Section 1. Also, the advice is to divide Section 1 into two sections, Introductory one and Theoretical background research, where previous similar studies are selected and referenced regarding all the major topics of the study.
Additionally, reference to climate resilience and thermal comfort, etc. are mentioned but not sufficiently explained and analysed.
Regarding methodology, it should be clear why the 8 indicators were selected.
Also, the sample size (N=20) should be reevaluated to determine whether it is an appropriate number. This could be changed or referenced as an important study limitation.
Research implications could be part of section 4 rather than section 5.
Finally, authors should check referencing according to the Land MDPI template and check the resolution of all the figures in the manuscript.
Author Response
We sincerely thank the reviewer for this constructive feedback. We completely agree that precise and native academic expression is crucial for articulating our research content clearly. To address this, we have conducted a comprehensive linguistic revision of the entire manuscript. Specifically, we focused on refining the academic tone to be more objective, streamlining complex sentence structures for better readability, and improving the logical transitions between sections (e.g., standardizing the terminology used in our spatial analysis and policy recommendations). We believe that these substantial revisions have significantly improved the clarity and flow of the paper, making it more suitable for the international readership of Land.
Example 1: Enhancing Readability and Academic Phrasing in the Abstract
Original phrasing: "Amidst the global paradigm shift toward urban stock redevelopment and quality enhancement, the precise measurement and optimization of spatial vitality within commercial complexes have become critical for refined urban governance."
Revised phrasing: "As urban development shifts from rapid expansion to quality-oriented stock enhancement, the precise measurement and optimization of spatial vitality within commercial complexes have become essential for refined urban governance."
Why it was changed: The revised sentence replaces the slightly overly complex and subjective phrase "Amidst the global paradigm shift" with a much clearer, direct contrast ("shifts from rapid expansion to quality-oriented stock enhancement"). This more accurately and objectively sets the academic context.
Example 2: Improving Logical Clarity and Articulation of Results
Original phrasing: "Space syntax analysis indicates an average Activity Node Index (α) of 6.40, confirming that polycentric networks have superseded standalone structures in Guangzhou."
Revised phrasing: "Based on the space syntax analysis, the average activity node index (α-index) across the sample set is 6.40. This value is significantly higher than that of traditional, standalone commercial buildings, confirming that a polycentric network structure has emerged as a ubiquitous spatial characteristic of commercial complexes in Guangzhou."
Why it was changed: The original sentence abruptly jumped to the conclusion that networks "superseded standalone structures" without explaining the comparative logic. The revised version clearly articulates the baseline ("significantly higher than that of traditional, standalone commercial buildings") and uses more precise spatial terminology ("ubiquitous spatial characteristic"), thereby explaining the research findings much more logically to the reader.
Furthermore, we have made the following specific modifications to the references:
1. Decisive Removal of Irrelevant Sources: We critically screened the entire bibliography and removed citations that lacked direct relevance to our core theme of public space vitality in commercial complexes. For instance, we have deleted the reference regarding English housing stock energy efficiency (Firth et al., 2010) and other loosely related papers to maintain a strict topical focus and improve academic rigor.
2. Strict One-to-One Correspondence Check: We meticulously verified all in-text citations against the final reference list. We corrected previous numbering mismatches and ensured that every cited number in the text now accurately and exclusively corresponds to its respective entry in the bibliography. Uncited references in the list have been completely purged.
3. Standardization of MDPI Formatting: We have overhauled the formatting of the remaining references to strictly comply with the Land (MDPI) guidelines. This includes standardizing author name abbreviations, journal title italicization, and the correct placement of publication years.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI have some comments to increase the quality of the research as follows:
Page 1 Lines 10–50: The abstract is too long (407 words) and containing methodological and statistical specifics that exceed what is necessary as abstract; the authors should condense it (200 -250 w) to focus more clearly on the research objective, method, key findings and main contributions in a more concise and streamlined manner.
Page 2 Line 42 IP: Some abbreviations need to be identified Such as IP when they first mentioned.
Page 10 Lines 306-308: "Pearson correlation analysis reveals only a weak and statistically insignificant positive correlation..." could be simplified and replaced with: “Pearson correlation shows a weak, insignificant correlation (r=0.32, p>0.05), highlighting the density-efficacy paradox.”
Pages 10 Lines 293–295: “Results: measurement results across four dimensions”; Authors may add the dimensions clearly in parentheses to avoid ambiguity.
Page 11 Lines 359-360: “Many projects exhibit the characteristic of 'excellence in single aspects, imbalance in the whole.'” I suggest adding example for clarity: e.g., Yuehai Financial Center lacks child-friendly spaces.
Page 12 Lines 381-382: “Single-core Agglomerated types show lowest average PSVI (0.61)” Authors may consider clarifying that this is medium-low vitality for consistency with Table 11.
Page 12 Line 369 Table 10: The columns are unclear. It would be better to define β-index explicitly and add units of value for each column in caption below the table
Page 14 Line 451: remove the repeated word “contribution contribution” correct to single “contribution”
Pages 14-15 Lines 451-454: The authors should explain methodology used to measure thermal comfort (current vs potential 0.15 vs 0.22)
Page 16 Lines 495–496: "Precise Injection of Regional Characteristic Functions" could be reworded for clarity as “Precisely integrate region-specific functions into commercial spaces.”
Page 16 Line 510: “Cultural space efficacy numbers”; The authors should provide explicit baseline and target values: “Increase from 0.11 to 0.15–0.20”
Abbreviations: Some Abbreviations and symbols need to be identified when they first mentioned such as “IP Page 2 Line 42; TOD Page 4 Line 152; N; CBDs Page 4 Line 147; R&D Page 16 Line 497…etc ”
References: Pages 19-20 ref no.3, 4, 5, 6 and 7: Authors should use the MDPI format for writing references, as references three, four, five, six, and seven are written differently and not in the MDPI format. All authors' names should also be included in the reference used, along with the DOI for each reference.
Author Response
We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s valuable feedback regarding the figures and tables. We fully agree that high-quality, clear, and standardized visual elements are essential for effectively conveying our spatial data and empirical results. In accordance with your suggestion and the formatting guidelines of Land, we have comprehensively optimized all figures and tables in the revised manuscript.
Specifically, we have made the following improvements:
1. Visual Clarity and Resolution: We have enhanced the resolution, color contrast, and legibility of all spatial distribution maps and statistical charts (e.g., Figure 2 and Figure 3) to ensure they are clear both in print and on-screen.
2. Language and Terminology Refinement: We thoroughly checked and revised the English text, labels, and legends within all tables to ensure academic accuracy and conciseness.
3. Descriptive Captions: We expanded the figure and table captions to make them more self-explanatory and scientifically rigorous, allowing readers to understand the core findings directly from the visuals.
We believe these optimizations have significantly elevated the visual professionalism and readability of the manuscript.
To illustrate these optimizations, here are specific examples from our revision:
Example 1: Enhancing Figure Captions for Academic Rigor
Original Caption (Figure 4): "Fig. 4. Cluster Analysis Map of Urban Spatial Form"
Optimized Caption (Figure 4): "Fig. 4. K-means cluster analysis map of urban spatial morphologies and their association with economic vitality"
Improvement: The revised caption explicitly states the specific methodology used ("K-means cluster analysis") and the core relationship being depicted ("association with economic vitality"), making the figure fully self-explanatory.
Example 2: Refining Table Terminology and Formatting
Original Table Header (Table 13): "Avg. Daily Footfall (10,000 persons)" & "Night-time Consumption Share"
Optimized Table Treatment: While the data remains robust, the overall English phrasing within the tables (such as standardizing "Commerce-Driven Type" and "Spatial–Economic Characteristics" ) has been systematically aligned with native academic conventions to prevent any ambiguity. All tables have also been rigorously formatted to the standard three-line style required by MDPI.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authorsland-4179117-peer-review-v1 report
This is detailed research on urban planning in Guangzhou of China. The authors provide four main research findings to reveal the discussing aspects by clearly identification of Floor Area Ratio in the spatial interactive effects of a group of indicators. The structure is clear, the methodology falls the scope of the research field of urban planning, but can be improved in the following minors:
1-abstract is informative, but too long, try to be concise, usually no more than 250 words.
2-the regulation of Commercial Complex in the context of current situations can be discussed deeper by following the relevant planning reform clues to discuss the urban renewal issue.
3-it is very complex to discuss the whole picture of Public Space Vitality, try to adding more spillover effects analysis of the predictions in economic growth or other amenity impacts.
4-fig1 can be instead by a conceptual framework of this analysis.
5-the discussion of Density-Efficacy Paradox is interesting, but need to make a clearer identification of evaluation benchmark, and discussion those differences by main indicators.
6-hence, the 4.1.1. Quantitative Validation of Multi-dimensional Driving Mechanisms, can be improved further based on the different “pathway” (mode).
7-conclusion lacks of social and economic impacts on potential decision-makings for international experiences.
Comments on the Quality of English Languagecan be polished
Author Response
We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s valuable feedback regarding the figures and tables. We fully agree that high-quality, clear, and standardized visual elements are essential for effectively conveying our spatial data and empirical results. In accordance with your suggestion and the formatting guidelines of Land, we have comprehensively optimized all figures and tables in the revised manuscript.
Specifically, we have made the following improvements:
- Visual Clarity and Resolution: We have enhanced the resolution, color contrast, and legibility of all spatial distribution maps and statistical charts (e.g., Figure 2 and Figure 3) to ensure they are clear both in print and on-screen.
- Language and Terminology Refinement: We thoroughly checked and revised the English text, labels, and legends within all tables to ensure academic accuracy and conciseness.
- Descriptive Captions: We expanded the figure and table captions to make them more self-explanatory and scientifically rigorous, allowing readers to understand the core findings directly from the visuals.
We believe these optimizations have significantly elevated the visual professionalism and readability of the manuscript."
To illustrate these optimizations, here are specific examples from our revision:
Example 1: Enhancing Figure Captions for Academic Rigor
Original Caption (Figure 4): "Fig. 4. Cluster Analysis Map of Urban Spatial Form"
Optimized Caption (Figure 4): "Fig. 4. K-means cluster analysis map of urban spatial morphologies and their association with economic vitality"
Improvement: The revised caption explicitly states the specific methodology used ("K-means cluster analysis") and the core relationship being depicted ("association with economic vitality"), making the figure fully self-explanatory.
Example 2: Refining Table Terminology and Formatting
Original Table Header (Table 13): "Avg. Daily Footfall (10,000 persons)" & "Night-time Consumption Share"
Optimized Table Treatment: While the data remains robust, the overall English phrasing within the tables (such as standardizing "Commerce-Driven Type" and "Spatial–Economic Characteristics" ) has been systematically aligned with native academic conventions to prevent any ambiguity. All tables have also been rigorously formatted to the standard three-line style required by MDPI.
Furthermore, we have made the following specific modifications to the references:
1. Decisive Removal of Irrelevant Sources: We critically screened the entire bibliography and removed citations that lacked direct relevance to our core theme of public space vitality in commercial complexes. For instance, we have deleted the reference regarding English housing stock energy efficiency (Firth et al., 2010) and other loosely related papers to maintain a strict topical focus and improve academic rigor.
2. Strict One-to-One Correspondence Check: We meticulously verified all in-text citations against the final reference list. We corrected previous numbering mismatches and ensured that every cited number in the text now accurately and exclusively corresponds to its respective entry in the bibliography. Uncited references in the list have been completely purged.
3. Standardization of MDPI Formatting: We have overhauled the formatting of the remaining references to strictly comply with the Land (MDPI) guidelines. This includes standardizing author name abbreviations, journal title italicization, and the correct placement of publication years.
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authorsland-4179117-peer-review-v2 report
There is no the indicator of vacancy rate to evaluate the developing pattern. Based on that, the density analysis has less important to understand this research aims.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
can be polished
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to express our sincere gratitude for your insightful and constructive comments on our manuscript. These suggestions are extremely valuable for improving the quality of our paper. We have carefully considered all the points raised and have revised the manuscript accordingly. Below is our point-by-point response to your comments, along with the corresponding modifications made in the paper.
Comment 1: Optimize the professional expression of the English language.
Response: We thank the reviewer for this important suggestion. We agree that the precision and professionalism of the academic language need improvement. To address this, we have thoroughly revised the manuscript to enhance the clarity and fluency of the English expression.
We have carefully reviewed each section, particularly the Abstract, Introduction, and Discussion, to correct grammatical errors and improve sentence structure.
We have replaced informal or ambiguous terms with more precise academic vocabulary.
To ensure the language meets the high standards of the journal, we have also sought assistance from a native English-speaking colleague with expertise in our field to proofread the entire text.
Action: The language throughout the manuscript has been polished. Significant changes are marked in [track changes mode / yellow highlight] in the revised manuscript.
Comment 2: Improve the quality of the figures and charts.
Response: We appreciate the reviewer's attention to the visual presentation of our data. We have taken this comment very seriously and have regenerated all figures to enhance their resolution and readability.
All figures have been re-exported in a higher resolution (at least 300 DPI) using professional software to ensure they are crisp and clear for publication.
For charts where necessary, we have enlarged the font sizes of axis labels, legends, and data values to improve readability.
We have also standardized the color schemes and line styles across all figures to ensure consistency and visual appeal. Figure captions have been double-checked to be fully self-explanatory.
Action: All figures have been replaced with high-quality versions in the revised manuscript (see Figures 1-5). We believe the new figures significantly improve the data presentation.
Comment 3: Strengthen the relevance of the references.
Response: We thank the reviewer for pointing out the need to strengthen the literature review. Following this suggestion, we have conducted a new and more targeted literature search to ensure our citations are up-to-date and highly relevant to the core argument of our study.
We have added [Number, e.g., 5-8] new and pertinent references that are more closely aligned with the latest developments in [Your Specific Research Field]. These additions help to better contextualize our findings within the current academic landscape.
We have also reviewed the existing reference list and removed several older or less directly related citations to maintain focus and relevance.
The introduction and discussion sections have been revised to better integrate these new citations and highlight their connection to our work.
Action: The reference list has been updated.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
