Study on an Artificial Society of Urban Safety Livability Change
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article reports the analysis and prediction of the urban safety livability of complex urban systems with the help of urban livability change artificial society. The article reminds case study, 25 pages in size, and should be well structured. Honestly, the introduction (aims, problems) and conclusions are not well connected. The reader may not really understand what to expect in the conclusions, and consequently the conclusions are not reflecting aims.
Therefore, major suggestions are:
- Structure of the article/ scientific character should be greatly enhanced. What is the novelty of study? What is the gap in knowledge the manuscript seeks to address?
-Please provide clear Scientific Aim and Scientific goals of the study (i.e. lines 69-85);
-Please provide a clear formulation of Scientific Problem(s) and comparison of solutions to such problems with other scientific researches. Why is it better way? (Background);
- Please resound/answer stated aim and goals in the conclusions. How does this contribute to knowledge that warrants publication–outcome?
Minor notes:
1. Line 140 “evolution” repetition
2. Line 337-338, formula formatting, indexes not appropriate.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Comments and Suggestions: The article reports the analysis and prediction of the urban safety livability of complex urban systems with the help of urban livability change artificial society. The article reminds case study, 25 pages in size, and should be well structured. Honestly, the introduction (aims, problems) and conclusions are not well connected. The reader may not really understand what to expect in the conclusions, and consequently the conclusions are not reflecting aims.
Response: Thanks very much for taking your time to review this manuscript. we really appreciate all your comments and suggestions! Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We are sorry that the manuscript structure was not well organized. We have revised the manuscript and would like to re-submit it for your consideration. We have addressed your comments. Revised portion have used the "Track Changes" function in Microsoft Word.Point-by-point responses to your comments are listed below this letter. We hope that the new manuscript meets your standard. Your comments and suggestions are very useful to us. If there is anything else in our paper that needs to be revised, please do not hesitate to tell us. Special thanks to you again for your comments.
Point 1: Structure of the article/ scientific character should be greatly enhanced. What is the novelty of study? What is the gap in knowledge the manuscript seeks to address?
Response 1: We are sorry, we didn't express the innovation of the article clearly. Compared with previous studies on habitability, we combined the influence of spatial environment factors and human decision-making factors to construct a more complete model. According to your opinions, we have modified the summary of previous studies in the background and conclusion section. For detailed revisions, see lines 263-271 and 865-905 of the manuscript.
Point 2: Please provide clear Scientific Aim and Scientific goals of the study (i.e. lines 69-85).
Response 2: We are sorry that we didn't have a explicit description of scientific goals and research goals. Our goal is to build a simulation model to study the interaction among residents, livable environment and policies, so as to provide suggestions and decision support for the government to plan the construction of urban safety facilities. We have re-written this part according to the your suggestion. For a detailed description, please refer to lines 128-141. We hope that the new manuscript meets your requirements.
Point 3: Please provide a clear formulation of Scientific Problem(s) and comparison of solutions to such problems with other scientific researches. Why is it better way? (Background).
Response 3: We are sorry that we didn't summarize clearly when we compared other papers. According to your suggestion, we readjusted the text. A detailed description of the comparison summary is on lines 260-274 and 302-312. Thank you for your careful work. Your comments and suggestions helped to greatly improve our manuscript.
Point 4: Please resound/answer stated aim and goals in the conclusions. How does this contribute to knowledge that warrants publication–outcome?
Response 4: Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions. In the conclusion part, we re edited the research significance of the model. We hope that this study can provide scientific decision support for the government's future urban planning. The model has important reference value for the study of urban safety and livability, and we hope to attract readers' attention. For a detailed description, please refer to lines 860-864.
Minor notes:
- Line 140 “evolution” repetition
Response: Thank you for underlining this deficiency. We are sorry for some mistakes in the manuscript. We deleted duplicate words and modified spelling errors in other paragraphs.
- Line 337-338, formula formatting, indexes not appropriate.
Response: Thank you very much for your careful work. We are sorry for some problems with the formula index in the manuscript. According to your opinions and suggestions, we have modified the index of the formula.
Based on your comments and suggestions, we have modified our manuscript and hope that the revised manuscript meets your requirements. Your suggestions were important to improving our manuscript. Thank you again for your comments and suggestions.
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper shows an interesting application of agent-based modeling. It is a very good job and may be of interest to a wide audience.
Revisions:
It is not clear if the Quota parameters of equation 7 are equivalent to the previous Quota of the other equations. For instance, I understand that Quota parameter of equation 1 is associated with the locations of different safety points. Is the Quota of equation 7 the same Quota of equation 1 or is an indicator associated with residents’ perceptions? Please clarify this issue in the manuscript.
When working with averages of satisfaction at the grid level, some bias could be originated. How do the authors overcome this limitation?
The discussion of the results can be improved. Please discuss your results contrasting them with the results and conclusions of studies of urban livability modeling.
Repast is open-source software. This study can share the developed code to guarantee the transparency and replicability of the data and investigation.
Minor revision:
When referring to authors in the main text, please do not write the names or the initials of names. Only write surnames.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Comments and Suggestions: This paper shows an interesting application of agent-based modeling. It is a very good job and may be of interest to a wide audience.
Response: Special thanks to you for your good comments. On behalf of my co-authors, we thank you very much for giving us an opportunity to revise our manuscript. We also appreciate you very much for your positive and constructive comments and suggestions on our manuscript. We have revised the manuscript and would like to re-submit it for your consideration. We have addressed your comments. Revised portion have used the "Track Changes" function in Microsoft Word.Point-by-point responses to your comments are listed below this letter. We hope that the new manuscript meets your standard. Your comments and suggestions are very useful to us. If there is anything else in our paper that needs to be revised, please do not hesitate to tell us. Special thanks to you again for your comments.
Point 1: It is not clear if the Quota parameters of equation 7 are equivalent to the previous Quota of the other equations. For instance, I understand that Quota parameter of equation 1 is associated with the locations of different safety points. Is the Quota of equation 7 the same Quota of equation 1 or is an indicator associated with residents’ perceptions? Please clarify this issue in the manuscript.
Response 1: We apologize for the negligence in the definition of formula 7. The calculation method of formula 7 is the same as that of formula 2. According to your suggestion, we explained it in the article. For a detailed description, please refer to line 558. Thank you for your careful work. Your comments and suggestions helped to greatly improve our manuscript.
Point 2: When working with averages of satisfaction at the grid level, some bias could be originated. How do the authors overcome this limitation?
Response 2: We are sorry that we didn't accurately describe the calculation process of average satisfaction. The average satisfaction is obtained by layer by layer calculation, and grid is just one of the levels defined for the convenience of statistics. The average grid satisfaction is obtained through the average family satisfaction.We have made correction according to your comments. For a detailed description, please refer to lines 571-574.Your comments and suggestions are very useful to us. We hope that the new manuscript meets your requirements.
Point 3: The discussion of the results can be improved. Please discuss your results contrasting them with the results and conclusions of studies of urban livability modeling.
Response 3: Thank you very much for all of the work and consideration that you have given to the revision of our paper. According to your suggestion, we compared with two urban livability models and discussed the advantages of ULC-AS model. For a detailed description, please refer to lines 865-905.
Point 4: Repast is open-source software. This study can share the developed code to guarantee the transparency and replicability of the data and investigation.
Response 4: As you suggested that the disclosure of the code to other scholars will contribute to the further development of this research. We provided the complete ULC-AS source code based on the suggestions in your letter and added a "Model Documentation" section to the article. For a detailed description, please refer to lines 968-969.
Minor revision:
When referring to authors in the main text, please do not write the names or the initials of names. Only write surnames.
Response : Thank you very much for your suggestions. We are very sorry for our incorrect writing. We have changed the name of the author in the main text.
Based on your comments and suggestions, we have modified our manuscript and hope that the revised manuscript meets your requirements. Your suggestions were important to improving our manuscript. Thank you again for your comments and suggestions.
Reviewer 3 Report
The presented for review manuscript requires some corrections:
- Improve the manuscript structure, please separate the study area and date subsection. In the subsection data, please describe precisely the data used for the analysis.
- The literature review supposed to be supplemented with a literature in the field of urban safety
- There is no precise definition of “Urban safety livability”, Please define it.
- Fig. 1 and 2 is unreadable, please improve readability of those Figures.
- Lines 77-78 “the study adopts five safety indicators: public safety, fire safety, traffic safety, emergency safety and residential safety” Please add description of these indicatiors. It is difficult to diferentiate eg. Public safety and traffic safety.
- Lines 168-169 Authors mention “three main levels, as shown in Figure 4.” whereas it is difficult to find them on this Fig., I can see five. Please correct it.
- Line 251 Authors mention “family agents, resident agents” could you pease define the difference them? All of Authors new terms supposed to be defined somewhere...
- Lines 281-282 please define all facilities you have taken into consideration. I do not have any idea what is a residential facility or transportation facility. Please add it.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Thanks very much for taking your time to review this manuscript. we really appreciate all your comments and suggestions! Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We are sorry to have ignored many definitions We have revised the manuscript and would like to re-submit it for your consideration. We have addressed your comments. Revised portion have used the "Track Changes" function in Microsoft Word.Point-by-point responses to your comments are listed below this letter. We hope that the new manuscript meets your standard. Your comments and suggestions are very useful to us. If there is anything else in our paper that needs to be revised, please do not hesitate to tell us. Special thanks to you again for your comments.
Point 1: Improve the manuscript structure, please separate the study area and date subsection. In the subsection data, please describe precisely the data used for the analysis.
Response 1: We are sorry that the structure of our article is unreasonable. According to your suggestion, we put the map and data of the study area in the third section. The third section of the original content is postponed to the next section. Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions. For a detailed description, please refer to lines 313-346.
Point 2: The literature review supposed to be supplemented with a literature in the field of urban safety.
Response 2: We are very sorry for our negligence of a literature in the field of urban safety. According to your suggestion, we add seven articles on urban safety in the introduction. For a detailed description, please refer to lines 116-124. Thank you very much for your suggestions. We hope that the new manuscript meets your requirements.
Point 3: There is no precise definition of “Urban safety livability”, Please define it.
Response 3: We are very sorry for our negligence of definition of “Urban safety livability”. Urban safety livability is defined as the quality of life and well-being of a city with safety as the main factor, and its level is measured by residents' satisfaction with safety facilities. For a detailed description, please refer to lines 125-126. Thank you very much for all of the work and consideration that you have given to the revision of our paper.
Point 4: Fig. 1 and 2 is unreadable, please improve readability of those Figures.
Response 4: We are sorry our pictures are unreadable. We hope readers can intuitively understand the development process of livability theory in China and the West. Therefore, We make the figure more concise. We hope that the new figure will meet your requirements and make it easier for readers to read.
Point 5: Lines 77-78 “the study adopts five safety indicators: public safety, fire safety, traffic safety, emergency safety and residential safety” Please add description of these indications. It is difficult to differentiate eg. Public safety and traffic safety.
Response 5: We are sorry we didn't define five safety indicators accurately. We are very sorry for your doubts. Public safety includes natural disasters, health care, crime, etc. Traffic safety aims at accidents on the road. In the new text, we described the definition of five safety indicators in detail. For a detailed description, please refer to lines 119-124. Thank you very much for your careful work.
Point 6: Lines 168-169 Authors mention “three main levels, as shown in Figure 4.” whereas it is difficult to find them on this Fig., I can see five. Please correct it.
Response 6: We are sorry that we didn't make clear the "three main levels" you mentioned in the article. The middle layer is divided into cells, grids and streets, so there are five layers in Figure 4. We have corrected the description. For a detailed description, please refer to lines 349-351. Thank you for underlining this deficiency.
Point 7: Line 251 Authors mention “family agents, resident agents” could you please define the difference them? All of Authors new terms supposed to be defined somewhere...
Response 7: We are very sorry for the confusion caused by my negligence. The resident agent is an individual, and many resident agents with marriage and blood relationship form a family agent. For a detailed description, please refer to lines 458-461. Thank you again for your comments and suggestions. Your suggestions were important to improving our manuscript.
Point 8: Lines 281-282 please define all facilities you have taken into consideration. I do not have any idea what is a residential facility or transportation facility. Please add it.
Response 8: Thank you very much for your suggestions.safety facilities include police stations, hospitals, fire stations, traffic kiosks, police offices, emergency shelters, squares, houses, green Spaces, schools, commercial centers, etc. For a detailed description, please refer to lines 488-496.
Special thanks to you for your comments. Based on your comments and suggestions, we have modified our manuscript and hope that the revised manuscript meets your requirements. Your comments and suggestions are very useful to us. If there is anything else in our paper that needs to be revised, please do not hesitate to tell us.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Authors have addressed my observations
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.
