Review Reports - Exploring Gender Differences through the Lens of Spatiotemporal Behavior Patterns in a Cultural Market: A Case Study of Panjiayuan Market in Beijing, China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Review of “Exploring gender difference in a cultural market using spatio- temporal data: a case study of Panjiayuan market in Beijing, China”

The study uses on-site observation and Spatio-Temporal Behaviour Mapping techniques in GIS to examine gender differences in group behavior patterns in four locations of the Panjiayuan Cultural Market in Beijing, China. The Spatio-Temporal Behaviour Mapping techniques, which are somewhat novel, have been improved. However, the discussion of the primary object of study and the logical connection between the content in the paper is unclear, and the focus is not strong enough. The article's substance contains more repetitions of words. Specific Revision Comments were given as follows:

1. The paper needs further clarification on the main object of the study. Consider which aspects of behavioural characteristics, numbers or other gender differences are to be discussed. Is there a contradiction between the “outdoor market” mentioned at the beginning of the abstract and the “culture market” in the main body of the article? The content should be rearranged to reflect the clarified purpose.

2. Gender differences in behaviours in cultural markets are the subject of this study, but the importance and necessity of gender differences research are not sufficiently discussed. The paper lacks emphasis on studying the particular implications of gender differences in cultural markets. It is recommended that this part of the Abstract and Introduction be reorganized.

3. The Introduction is not deep enough. Firstly, it is difficult to highlight the importance of the study because of the lack of explanation of the international context and the Chinese phenomenon. Secondly, it is recommended to elaborate on the reasons for choosing the object of the cultural market research space and what characteristics it has. In addition, it is suggested to enrich the research overview section and point out the shortcomings and gaps in the existing research.

4. The paper is not sufficiently clear about the relationship between the main research elements. It is not necessary to describe each keyword in detail, but to focus on the logical relationship between the keywords "space - gender - mobility".

5. The concept of mobility is not sufficiently explained in the text, and only its characteristics are discussed. It is recommended that an explanation of it be added, as well as how it is assessed.

6. There is a repetition of unimportant information in the text. The content of the group discussion in lines 206-208 does not need to be presented. It is also suggested to simplify these elements.

7. In addition, the information on lines 265-269 of the paper is redundant and confusingly related. Is there a particular significance to the proportion of the various acts being described in two paragraphs? Alternatively, it would be best to combine the paragraphs and simplify their repetition.

8. It is significant to recognize that the elements in Figure 3 are not all "actions" and that "special people" should not be considered as a level of action. In addition, it is recommended that the layout of the other tables be optimised, as there are too many hyphenated symbols that affect reading and understanding.

9. The content of lines 225-228 of the paper has an unclear causal relationship. It is suggested to check this paragraph. In addition, rethink the reasonableness of the methodology used here to classify the age groups of the population and mark the references or relevant criteria.

10. The research is instructive for spatial transformation, but the paper does not sufficiently describe the practical implications of the findings in question. Therefore, it is suggested that the summary should include an appropriate amount of outlook on improvement strategies and other aspects.

Author Response

Reviewer #1:

Thanks for your kind encouragement.

However, the discussion of the primary object of study and the logical connection between the content in the paper is unclear, and the focus is not strong enough. The article's substance contains more repetitions of words. Specific Revision Comments were given as follows:

Many thanks for your time. We have carefully revised the manuscript according to your value comments. These are helpful and constructive.

1. The paper needs further clarification on the main object of the study. Consider which aspects of behavioural characteristics, numbers or other gender differences are to be discussed.

Thanks for this suggestion. We have clarified the study objects of this paper and written the details in p.3-4. Line 142-145.

Is there a contradiction between the “outdoor market” mentioned at the beginning of the abstract and the “culture market” in the main body of the article? The content should be rearranged to reflect the clarified purpose.

Thanks for this observation. We deleted the word “outdoor” as we did not discuss the differences between indoor and outdoor markets in the main body. The culture market is one of the market types. Also, we revised the abstract.

Thank you for this suggestion, we have added the discussed the importance and necessity in p.2. line 44-82. We also reorganised the whole introduction and abstract parts.

3. The Introduction is not deep enough. Firstly, it is difficult to highlight the importance of the study because of the lack of explanation of the international context and the Chinese phenomenon.

Secondly, it is recommended to elaborate on the reasons for choosing the object of the cultural market research space and what characteristics it has.

In addition, it is suggested to enrich the research overview section and point out the shortcomings and gaps in the existing research.

Thank you for your constructive comments. The international context and the Chinese phenomenon have been added in p.3. line 111-124.

Yes, we agree with you. The overall gender equality situation in China does not appear to be bad. However, cultural markets in China such as Panjiayuan market have the situation of gender inequalities, which is overlooked in the current studies. That is the reason for choosing cultural markets in our research.

In addition, the research overview section has been enriched, and the gaps in the existing research have been highlight. Please see detail in p.3. line 125-135.

We have clarified the objectives in p.3. line 142-145. And in the whole paper, we refined the "space - gender - mobility".

5. The concept of mobility is not sufficiently explained in the text, and only its characteristics are discussed. It is recommended that an explanation of it be added, as well as how it is assessed.

Thanks. We have reinforced this part. The concept of space mobility is the change of mobile elements in space per unit of time, please see detail explanation in p.2. line 92-95 and p.7. line 296. The assesses method is in p.7. line 296-316.

6. There is a repetition of unimportant information in the text. The content of the group discussion in lines 206-208 does not need to be presented. It is also suggested to simplify these elements.

Thank you for your comment, we have removed the paragraph. And simply the information that had not been adequately discussed (e.g., we deleted Table 1).

Thank you for pointing this out, we have made the necessary simplifications and removed the duplication, please see in p.8.

8. It is significant to recognize that the elements in Figure 3 are not all "actions" and that "special people" should not be considered as a level of action.

Thank you for your valuable comment. We have added the necessary clarification for the “special people” and other codes in the text (p.6-7.). For the purposes of this study, special people are used to refer to specific activities brought about by special people. For example, cleaners refer to the cleaning activity.

In addition, it is recommended that the layout of the other tables be optimised, as there are too many hyphenated symbols that affect reading and understanding.

Many thanks for the suggestion. We have adjusted Table 3, Table 4, and Table 6.

9. The content of lines 225-228 of the paper has an unclear causal relationship. It is suggested to check this paragraph.

Thank you for pointing this out, we have removed "As China has been undergoing", and only kept the criteria for age and gender (p.7.).

In addition, rethink the reasonableness of the methodology used here to classify the age groups of the population and mark the references or relevant criteria.

Thanks for the advice, we have added references to the relevant age categories and the basis for the adjustments, please see details in p.7. line 279-287.

Thank you very much for the useful comment. We have added several practical implications. For example, more storage space, more convenient handling tools or other more physically disadvantaged-friendly policies for handling goods in the market” (please see detail in p.15. line 507-518.)

Reviewer 2 Report

About the submission "Exploring gender difference in a cultural market using spatio-temporal data: a case study of Panjiayuan market in Beijing, China" I have the following comments:

I suggest to rewrite the abstract in a more clear way. It could be important to clearly identify main motivations, objectives, methodologies, gaps in the literature that justify the research, novelties and main insights. Another question is about the unclarity of some expressions in the abstract, such as: "Spatio-Temporal Behaviour Mapping (STBM) in GIS (n=8758)...".

I suggest to confirm the potential problems of copyrights in figures 1 and 2. The literature review could be significantly improved.

Nonetheless, the main weaknesses are related with the methodology. I would be expected something more robust, including with approaches related with spatial autocorrelation. I suggest to improve significantly the approaches considered. Without a more robust approach, the results obtained seem more output of a technical report.

For the conclusions section are missing paragraphs about policy recommendations, practical implications and suggestions for future research.

Author Response

Reviewer # 2:

About the submission "Exploring gender difference in a cultural market using spatio-temporal data: a case study of Panjiayuan market in Beijing, China" I have the following comments:

Yes, we agree with you. We rewrote the abstract.

I suggest to confirm the potential problems of copyrights in figures 1 and 2.

Thank you for your reminding, both Figures 1 and 2 are copyrighted, with Figure 1 being drawn by the author and the photograph in Figure 2 being taken by the research team during data collection; in addition, relevant information has been added to the text.

The literature review could be significantly improved.

The whole literature review has reorganised, and added more international (e.g. recently research in UK, Spain, and Brazil) and China-related research and adapted it in its overall logic (please see p. 2-3).

Nonetheless, the main weaknesses are related with the methodology. I would be expected something more robust, including with approaches related with spatial autocorrelation. I suggest improving significantly the approaches considered. Without a more robust approach, the results obtained seem more output of a technical report.

Thank you for your comment. We have added to the relevant references and rewritten the details of the methodology (please see details in p.5-6.). This study draws on the methodology used in the published study (Sun et al., 2020), so the method is relatively well established. We adopted the method and applied it in our study for gender differences.

For the conclusions section are missing paragraphs about policy recommendations, practical implications and suggestions for future research.

Many thanks for your reminding, the practical implication, policy recommendations and suggestions for future research have been added in the conclusion p.15.

Reviewer 3 Report

The study is relevant and its methodology is remarkable.

The manuscript essentially analyses gender issues in a selected sample area in Beijing. However, not much is written about the general situation of women (e.g. their status, and use of space) within the People’s Republic of China and Beijing, so the non-Chinese, global reader may be puzzled as e.g. to how to interpret the detailed empirical research results. Therefore, the authors should write more about this (e.g., by adding some more relevant literature). By the way, I am not convinced that, on a global average, the position of women in the People’s Republic of China and Beijing is particularly bad based on the criteria examined in the research.

In the theoretical introduction, the manuscript makes claims based on literature analysis that are not subsequently examined. I suppose that some of the findings can therefore be omitted. E.g. p. 2. "Gender is a product of culture rather than nature[17,18]...". Such findings would be more justified, I assume if the authors wrote a theoretical article on the subject. However, since this is not the case in the manuscript, and the authors do not analyse such statements later, and the authors' cited claims are not supported by all social theories, I would either omit such claims or formulate them in a less normative way, including the presentation of different scientific sources, social theories as well.

Could the author give a few more objective reasons why the Panjiayuan market was chosen within the group of markets in Beijing? E.g. would there have been other alternatives for that?

To what extent did privacy considerations affect the photography of the area of their empirical study? Did the people in the sample area receive any information about the research? Or did people ask researchers questions about this?

Some illustrations need to be improved (Fig. 1, p. 3, is quite vague and does not even contain a scale bar, and Fig. 5, p. 11 is barely legible).

Author Response

Reviewer #3:

The study is relevant and its methodology is remarkable.

Thank you very much for your kind encouragement.

Thank you very much for pointing out the shortcomings, and we have added the related Chinese situation of women in both introduction (please see p.3. line 111-135.) and discussion.

By the way, I am not convinced that, on a global average, the position of women in the People’s Republic of China and Beijing is particularly bad based on the criteria examined in the research.

We agree with you. the position of women in the People’s Republic of China and Beijing is not bad from the statistic of overall gender ratio (p.3. line 138). However, cultural markets in China such as Panjiayuan market have the situation of gender inequalities.

We have sufficiently adjusted the introduction and weakened the findings that are not relevant to the overall logic, including the statement referred above.

Could the author give a few more objective reasons why the Panjiayuan market was chosen within the group of markets in Beijing? E.g. would there have been other alternatives for that?

Thank you for your suggestion. We have added more objective reasons, for example, “the stable time cycle and the over 30 years of history with the absence of excessive upscaling corelated with too much designer intervention…” (please see detail in p.4. line 159-163.)

Thanks for your question, the overall principles of privacy were considered in twofold: on the one hand we ensured their right to know by obtained permission to film and posted a filming statement in a prominent place near the filming location and on the other hand we reduce the disturbance to the person being filmed. We have added those (please see detail in p.6. line 220-225).

Some illustrations need to be improved (Fig. 1, p. 3, is quite vague and does not even contain a scale bar, and Fig. 5, p. 11 is barely legible).

Thank you for the reminding, Fig. 1 was improved, and Fig. 5 is split into 2 parts (please see Fig. 5 and Fig. 6).

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper was improved in response to the initial revision, and the problems highlighted were partially addressed. However, the focus on the object of the study and the final research goal could be further improved. The specific comments are as follows.

1. It is suggested that the title, as well as the key sections, specify which element of gender differences in cultural markets is being studied (whether it is visitor characteristics or walking behavior, or some other keyword).

2. In the Introduction section, after discussing several keywords, the summary of the primary study content is not accurate and in-depth. It is suggested to summarize the main research contents that can characterize the "gender differences of visitors in cultural markets under different mobility" in the appropriate position; and it is suggested to simplify the "accessibility" if it is not the core content; in addition, it is suggested to add more sections to the exploration objectives and meanings of the research behavior pattern of the article.

Author Response

Point 1: It is suggested that the title, as well as the key sections, specify which element of gender differences in cultural markets is being studied (whether it is visitor characteristics or walking behavior, or some other keyword).

Response 1:Thank you for your suggestion, we have revised our paper based on this comment. Our study has three main elements of gender differences. The first two elements are studied by statistical analyses and the last one is by spatial analysis. The first element is gender differences in the proportion of gender presence, which has been added to section 3.1, please see p.9. line 510-511. The second focuses on gender differences by age group, which has been added to section 3.2, please see p.11. line 614-615. The third section focuses on gender differences in the spatial distribution of the most important activities in the cultural market segments (selling, buying, and common activities), which have been added to section 3.3, p.11. line 626-628.

Point 2: In the Introduction section, after discussing several keywords, the summary of the primary study content is not accurate and in-depth. It is suggested to summarize the main research contents that can characterize the "gender differences of visitors in cultural markets under different mobility" in the appropriate position;

Response 2: Thank you for the suggestion, we have rearranged a summary of previous research and added it to the introduction, please see details in p.3. line 197-206.

Point 3: It is suggested to simplify the "accessibility" if it is not the core content;

Response 3: Thanks, we have simplified the “accessibility” in the introduction. For example, we have deleted the paragraph “Location accessibility by gender is influenced…” and extract the important information and merge it into the paragraph “The perception of safety is not specific to women…”.

Point 4: In addition, it is suggested to add more sections to the exploration objectives and meanings of the research behavior pattern.

Response 4: Thanks for those suggestions, we have added contents to the section 1.1, please see p.4.line 208-254.

Reviewer 2 Report

I suggest to add some paragraphs about the limitations of the methodologies used and why the spatial autocorrelation approaches were not considered.

Author Response

Point 1: I suggest to add some paragraphs about the limitations of the methodologies used and why the spatial autocorrelation approaches were not considered.

Response 1: Thanks to your suggestion. We have added the limitations of our methodologies in p.14. line 748-751. In addition, we tried the spatial autocorrelation approaches, which is effective and credible. In the future, we will focus on spatial autocorrelation approaches and use them to explore clustering across time, age, or other activities in cultural markets and apply it in the next article. Therefore, this paper has a border scope as the first exploration of gender behaviours in cultural markets, and our next article will be more focused.