A Citizen-Sensing System for Measuring Urban Environmental Quality: A Case Study Carried out in Taiwan

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1)In the introduction, citizen science issues are not examined in depth. Similarly, it is seen that current research is not included in this manuscript in the references section. I will suggest some resources to the authors in order to overcome these shortcomings regarding crowdsourcing. It would be helpful if this part was written in a way that would attract readers.

 

Saralioglu, E., & Gungor, O. (2022). Crowdsourcing-based application to solve the problem of insufficient training data in deep learning-based classification of satellite images. Geocarto International, 37(18), 5433-5452.

 

T. Blaschke, G. J. Hay, Q. Weng and B. Resch, "Collective sensing: Integrating geospatial technologies to understand urban systems: An overview", Remote Sens., vol. 3, no. 8, pp. 1743-1776, 2011.

 

 Saralioglu, E., & Gungor, O. (2020). Crowdsourcing in remote sensing: A review of applications and future directions. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Magazine, 8(4), 89-110.

 

D. Sui, M. Goodchild and S. Elwood, "Volunteered geographic information the exaflood and the growing digital divide" in Crowdsourcing Geographic Knowledge, Berlin:Springer-Verlag, pp. 1-12, 2013.

 

2) The title and the content in line 82 do not fit together enough. For example, the negatives in the title are not in the text.

 

3) In line 204, How many people were reached in the survey? How were these people selected? Information like this should be included.

 

4) On line 359, How did users go to the website you created and fill out your survey? How did they find out about your website?

 

5) In line 365,  What is the name of the algorithm you mentioned you are using?

 

 

6) In line 369, How did you choose the Citizens and how many?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

I read this article with great interest and would like to thank the editors for giving me a chance to engage with this work. This article aims to focus on how to collect citizens’ feelings about urban environments and develop a citizen-sensing system for bridging the gap between citizen feelings and sensor networks.

In my opinion, it is a very relevant and important undertaking; especially in the current global context. I congratulate you on your effort to establish such a logical and original method. But I think there are some points which need to be considered by the authors to increase the internal validity of the text:

- It will be more descriptive if you present the relationship between " Citizen Sensing System" with “Urban Environmental Quality” by triangulations of your main keywords to highlight the importance of your study. There should be a justifiable discussion in the literature part of your study to develop the interrelation. The reason is that I still didn't get the main gap in the study. The relevance of the research problem for the discipline should be highlighted. Why this research is important and how urban planners can get benefit from the findings of this study would be highlighted as well. The author may need to highlight the importance of the study in the abstract and conclusion.  Contribution to academia needs to be clearly highlighted in the abstract, introduction and conclusion part of the study. The contribution of the study needs to be explained in such a way that to increase the originality of the study.

- Your abstract should cover Introduction and Reason for conducting the research, Problem (knowledge gap), Methods, Outcomes (results), and Ramifications (Implications). The abstract should be re-written so that it encompasses summaries of the most important parts of the study results and authors' arguments.

- Introduction doesn’t have any scientific structure to highlight the problem of the study or the gap in the literature. The introduction of the manuscript is not well-organized author may use the strategy of “ big umbrella” to focus on the main problem of the manuscript.  

- It would be great to work a little bit more on the methodology part to be easily understandable for the readers. Maybe a graphical presentation will help readers to follow your study easily. You may refer to qualitative, systematic reviews or any other methods that are suitable for your study, so it needs some explanation, consider mentioning methods techniques and tactics of your research under a big umbrella.

- The conclusion needs to restructure, some essential information which supposes to be in the conclusion part is missing. For example, what are the findings to support the hypothesis of the study? how you described the contribution of your study to the existing literature?. or etc., the Conclusion of your study could be much more descriptive by the findings that you mentioned in the discussion part.

- All the cited references should be in the requested format of the journal.

-Suggestion for future study is also missing from the last line of the conclusion.

-Funding statements and acknowledgements shouldn't necessarily be the same.

Final Opinion

As indicated in the review, for all the reasons explained above, this reviewer suggests a minor revision.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx