Dynamic Grid-Based Spatial Density Visualization and Rail Transit Station Prediction

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 2 Report

The subject of the paper comes under the scope of the journal and looks interesting. Overall, the paper has been fairly organized and presented. However, the paper needs a minor revision and the following comments need to be addressed for the publication of the paper:

1. Is the fifth paragraph of section 2.2 deleted unnecessary paragraphs? If so, it should not be included in the article.
2. The format and text need to be adjusted again, and those unnecessary paragraphs or texts should be deleted and should not include in the article.
3. Conclusions should highlight the unique contributions of the paper, implications, limitations of the research and some future research directions. However, the discussion on the implications, limitations, and contribution are relatively shallow and needs to be expanded critically.
4. It should include some latest references (2019-2021) journals to enhance the currency and relevance of the research, and also motivate the readers in the subject.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper examines the usefulness of visualization for simple identification by officials. Indeed, maps and visualizations are a good basis of decision making - but they must be obvious in interpretation by users (vertical and horizontal scale, spatial reference of public transport stations, appropriate value classes, etc.). The technical stages of grid preparation seem correct, however, the proposed visualizations in Figure 7 are graphically effective rather than suitable for user interpretation. The paper lacks a discussion section - that is, there is no objective assessment of the results and no indication of scientific novelty in this research compared to other studies. The conclusions contain the subjective high assessment by the authors. There are no objective scientific conclusions based on the scientific literature.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 4 Report

The paper is logically elaborated, the working methods on spatial density visualization and rail transit station prediction based on dynamic grid generation are intelligible, there is mentioned Code for transport planning on urban road as main methodology, showing that the authors have taken into account the regulations in force.

The GIS methods are applied in an appropriate manner in the paper. The dynamic grid generation method is applied in a correct manner, as well as the second one, the uncovered grids extraction. The case study on rail transit station prediction based on uncovered grids highlights that the applied methods have led to relevant results.

There are also included some important comparison results and is emphasized the varying fault-tolerant radius for prediction accuracy.

The authors should refine the formatting, eliminating the stressed sections (strikethrough).

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The revised version still lacks the interpretation of the visualization in figure 8 (Figure 8. Density visualization of uncovered AP in central Beijing) and its relation to the result in figure 15 (Figure 15. Distribution of built stations around unpredicted stations). There is still no discussion in the last section - with literature and other research - here the authors should convince a reader of the objective value of their results.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Excellent work. Visual representation is important because it allows the analysis of subjective aspects that do not appear in the mathematical model and that may be important to consider in the decision-making process.

Reviewer 2 Report

following are some suggestions to improve the scientific quality and soundness of the work:

1. seztion1: the first part describes the role of rail transit stations within the urban system. This description should be improved by increasing the numerous impacts that a new rail transit station has in terms of effects of reorganization of the urban area (accessibility, real estate values and so on). Authors could also refer to some case study to cite to underline the benefits derived by this kind of infrastrucutral action.
2. section 2: the scientific framework related to the issue seems to be weak. the authors should widen the description of the state of art they refer to, in order to underline better the scientific gap they try to fill with this work.
3. which is the method? I mean, within section a list of the main steps (provided by the achieved aims) was inserted, but then, in section 5 and 6 and 7 the methodological sequence of the analysis used was taken for granted.
4. section 8: who can be the beneficiaries of this method? I mean, its usefulness for local decision makers and technicians in the last section is barely mentioned!

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper presents a method to estimate a suitable location based on spatial distribution of access points (AP). Although the topic seems fitting to the journal, I would recommend rejecting it from publication because of the following reasons.

1. The authors assumed the AP density could be a proxy of population density. However, it is usual that many APs are installed around new stations regardless of population. The authors should cite literature supporting that AP density can represent population density.

2. The authors should compare the methods with the others in the performance assessment; otherwise we cannot identify what and how much the progress and contributions are.

The following are some general comments for the next submission.

3. Figure 6: Please add an example of clustering, such as K-Means and DBSCAN, to compare the clustering performance with DBSCAN.

4. Figure 7: Please add a reference of the background map if cited.

5. Figure 7, 8, 13, 14: Please add a legend.

Thank you in advance for your considerations.