Research on the Evaluation and Optimization of Street Quality in Cultural Attractions Based on Spatial Data

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study evaluated the development potential of road quality in historical and cultural scenic spots by building an index system, using machine learning and analytic hierarchy process based on spatial data. The research results make a contribution to the development potential of historical and cultural scenic spots. But research still needs to improve in the following aspects:

1. The research does not define scenic spots or roads with high potential. What is the specific meaning of the high-potential for development? The ranked-top spots are high-quality, are they still need further development? Or should we focus on the streets with lower rankings to identify areas for improvement, which is the so-called development potential?
2. The indicators should include the cultural attributes of the scenic spot, as well as its energy level and scale. These are essential foundations for the attractiveness of tourism and the potential for developing historical and cultural scenic spots. Is the environmental indicator a result or a cause? When the scenic spot has development potential, the surrounding street environment has the value of improvement. So, only when the potential is clearly defined can we know whether the environmental indicator is a cause or a result.
3. The research claims to have used POI data, but which part of the research used the POI data? And what is the source of the POI data?
4. Is a 1 km buffer reasonable? Historical and cultural scenic spots' energy levels and scale are related to their attractiveness. The attraction of some scenic spots to the surrounding area is likely to exceed a 1-km range, such as the Shaanxi History Museum and the Giant Wild Goose Pagoda.
5. In lines 524 - 538, the part about the improvement strategy is rather general. It does not conduct a targeted strategy analysis for specific scenic spots that need improvement based on the analysis results. Also, the related indicators are not fully discussed. More attention should be paid to discussing the influencing mechanisms and principles behind the indicators.
6. There is a lack of discussion on the research results. For example, there is no discussion on why the popular scenic spot, the Giant Wild Goose Pagoda, ranks low. What are the differences in the analysis results compared with the top-three ranked scenic spots? What indicators have influenced this attraction's ranking to make it so low? As far as I know, both the Shaanxi History Museum and the Giant Wild Goose Pagoda are popular among tourists, even more popular than the top - three scenic spots in the analysis, but the analysis results show they rank low. What is the reason for this result? It should be noted that the research is to improve the experience of tourists. So, the discussion should consider tourists’ preference for scenic spots, not just the ranking results.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English Language can be improved.

Author Response

Many thanks to the reviewers for their work! We have made changes according to your suggestions, which are attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the study, a detailed evaluation of cultural scenic spots in Yanta District, Xi’an, China, with a focus on assessing street space quality, accessibility, and humanistic and environmental perceptions were analyzed. In the study data from different sources were used and high-potential scenic spots and provides recommendations for enhancing cultural and urban tourism were identified. The study is well prepared and might be useful especially for tourism development. However, there are some points should be realized to improve the technical quality of the manuscript.

From Figure 3 to Figure 7, there are local names given in Chinese characters. They should be removed.

Please simplify or briefly define some technical terms such as “Semantic segmentation” and “City Six Perception Model” and remove some repeated terms.

Please provide a clear explanation for the choice of 1 km buffer zone selection and please indicate the relationships between distance and the socioeconomic factors if there is any.

Please give some brief information about the importance of the indicators such as green visual coverage, to improve the visitor experiences. Additionally, please provide some information about the implications of the outputs for cultural tourism and urban planning.

Please provide detailed information about how advanced technologies like drones and IoT sensors may improve the framework as data collection method.

Please give a clear explanations about the limitations in data sources, applied methodology and  generalizability of the outputs.

Author Response

Many thanks to the reviewers for their work! We have made changes according to your suggestions, which are attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study aims to evaluate the development potential of road quality in historic and cultural scenic spots by using spatial data and the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) method.

The authors have utilized GIS software for establishing area boundaries and therefore analyze the potential impact of the scenic area on the surrounding road network.

This study is interesting, the level of English language is appropriate. Some comments are addressed to the authors in order to clarify specific aspects and improve the quality of their manuscript.

Abstract: please include your most important finding

Introduction Literature review: Please state your research questions, in form of RQ1, RQ2….in the introduction section.

The literature review section should be a distinctive chapter (not merged with the introduction). The literature review is based on 41 referenced articles, most of them related to the study topic. Nevertheless, most of them are authored by Asian writers. The authors are suggested to replace or include publications written by international author teams, adding a diversity in the references used promotes the recognition of the work of the international scientific community.

My most important remark is that this study lacks of theoretical background in the field of urban theory. You may base your theoretical background with classic Urban approaches in books which are considered fundamental in urban theory such as “Architecture, choice or Faith” by Leon Krier, published during the 80’s where all your building functions and their relations are elaborated. The specific book explains schematically the relations between the functions that may serve as guidelines for future land developers and policy makers in the process of reconstruction or the creation of new neighborhoods and cities, underlining the role of historic and cultural monuments.

Please use MDPI citation style, the manuscript has multiple citation styles (lines 49,52,54,71,74,84)

Case study: A missing index is the climate factors, in terms of bioclimatic characteristics of each neighborhood. Temperature differences may be developed due to the relations of street width and buildings height, that may cause unwanted temperature rises in historical urban areas, combined with tourism overcrowding. several researches have  investigated materials applied in ground surfaces (streets and pavements) for minimizing the effect of urban microclimate in historic neighborhoods.

Conclusion: In the conclusion section, the authors should directly respond to the their RQs, as stated in the introduction section. The authors are also advised to elaborate further on the implications of this work as well as your suggestions to Future developers and policy makers, after applying your method for improving urban areas as well.

Author Response

Many thanks to the reviewers for their work! We have made changes according to your suggestions, which are attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have provided a full response to the review suggestions, but still needs to make improvements in the following:

1. For the strategic discussion of the analysis results in lines 565-595, it is recommended to expound on it in combination with specific scenic spots instead of simply describing the strategies.
2. The conclusion part is too lengthy. Please condense the sections of limitations and future research.

Author Response

We are very grateful to the reviewer for your work and the specific revised responses are shown in the appendix.  Your suggestions have helped us immensely in our efforts to improve the quality of the manuscript. We wish you all the best!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Most of my comments have been realized by the authors and are in the manuscript and response letter (author_response.pdf). However, my first comments given in the first round were partly realized. I commented, "From Figure 3 to Figure 7, local names are given in Chinese characters. They should be removed." The authors responded, "In response to your question about the Chinese names in Figures 3 to 7, they have been revised to match their English equivalents.". However, when I checked the figures, I realized that only the place names in Figures 3 and 4 have been supplemented with their English equivalents, while the Chinese place names in Figures 5 to 7 have not been provided with their English equivalents. The English equivalents of these place names should be added alongside the existing Chinese names. After these corrections are realized, the study can be published.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English is sufficient.

Author Response

We are very grateful to the reviewer for your work and the specific revised responses are shown in the appendix.  Your suggestions have helped us immensely in our efforts to improve the quality of the manuscript. We wish you all the best!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors responded to all reviewer's comments, therefore the manuscript merits to be published

Author Response

We are very grateful to the reviewer for your work and appreciate your recognition of our manuscript. Your suggestions have helped us immensely in our efforts to improve the quality of the manuscript. We wish you all the best!