Real-Time Monitoring of Visitor Carrying Capacity in Crowded Historic Streets Through Digital Technologies

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper reports on the implementation of digital real-time tools to monitor visitor overcrowding and congestion situations in historic centres. The monitoring system was implemented in an experimental urban area in the city of Valencia, Spain.

The paper can be improved by providing more technical details on the implemented system. It can also be improved by involving aspects related to visitor flow behaviour, rather than mere visitor counting and threshold conditions detection, with citing of related works in the literature. 

Author Response

Comment 1: 

The paper can be improved by providing more technical details on the implemented system. It can also be improved by involving aspects related to visitor flow behaviour, rather than mere visitor counting and threshold conditions detection, with citing of related works in the literature. 

Response 1:
Thanks for pointing this out. We have reviewed the technical section and check it to be adequately detailed. Additionally, we have added a section on visitor behavior to briefly describe this situation in the street citing related literature (lines 176 -186). Since visitor behavior is a complex topic, it was not fully addressed in the present study, as mentioned in paragraphs 137-143.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper presents a real-time monitoring system for visitor flows in historic streets, leveraging digital technologies to manage visitor carrying capacity and promote sustainable tourism.

1. The paper would benefit from more explicitly stating the research hypotheses and objectives upfront. This will help readers follow the logic and motivation behind the study and ensure that the methods and results directly address these objectives.

2. While the paper presents interesting results on monitoring visitor flows, more in-depth analysis of the data could reveal additional insights. For example, conducting a statistical analysis to identify patterns or trends in visitor behavior across different events or time periods would strengthen the conclusions.

3.  The discussion of limitations and implications of the study is brief. Expanding this section to address potential biases in the data collection, limitations of the monitoring technology, and the broader societal and policy implications of the findings would demonstrate the authors' comprehensive understanding of the work.

4.  The discussion of limitations and implications of the study is brief. Expanding this section to address potential biases in the data collection, limitations of the monitoring technology, and the broader societal and policy implications of the findings would demonstrate the authors' comprehensive understanding of the work.

5.  The conclusion and future work sections could be expanded to summarize the key findings in a concise manner and propose specific directions for future research. This might include exploring the use of additional data sources, integrating the monitoring system with other urban management tools, or testing the methodology in other historic centers to assess its generalizability.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments, which we will detail below.

Comment 1: 

The paper would benefit from more explicitly stating the research hypotheses and objectives upfront. This will help readers follow the logic and motivation behind the study and ensure that the methods and results directly address these objectives.

Respose 1: We have corrected the main objective to make it clearer. It can be found in lines 128-132.

Comment 2:
While the paper presents interesting results on monitoring visitor flows, more in-depth analysis of the data could reveal additional insights. For example, conducting a statistical analysis to identify patterns or trends in visitor behavior across different events or time periods would strengthen the conclusions.

Response 2:
Due to the complexity and breadth of visitor behavior, this topic has not been extensively addressed in the present study, as explained in lines 137-143. However, we have included a brief description of visitor behavior in the studied street, taking into account related studies. This information can be found in lines 177-186.

Comments 3 and 4:
The discussion of limitations and implications of the study is brief. Expanding this section to address potential biases in the data collection, limitations of the monitoring technology, and the broader societal and policy implications of the findings would demonstrate the authors' comprehensive understanding of the work.

Response 3 and 4:
We have expanded on the limitations encountered, which can be found in lines 442-451.

Comment 5:
The conclusion and future work sections could be expanded to summarize the key findings in a concise manner and propose specific directions for future research. This might include exploring the use of additional data sources, integrating the monitoring system with other urban management tools, or testing the methodology in other historic centers to assess its generalizability.

Response 5:
We have reviewed and improved the conclusions section. Additionally, we have expanded the part related to future research based on your suggestions, which can be found in lines 461-470.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The proposed article is well-written, with a clear and coherent presentation of its subject matter. The discussion on the use of digital technologies for monitoring visitor carrying capacity in urban heritage spaces is both timely and highly relevant, especially as these spaces face increasing pressure from tourism. The methodology is well explained, and the case study focused on Valencia's historic center is consistent with the broader history of studies on visitor flow management in public spaces. The integration of real-time monitoring, GIS, and urban modeling makes an important contribution to urban management techniques, especially in complicated situations such as historic districts.

 

One minor aspect to examine is whether the proposed technology might conflict with current European privacy legislation. Specifically, it may be worthwhile to investigate how the system can be implemented in accordance with stringent privacy regulations, such as the General Data Protection Regulation. Although the article does not address this problem, it would be helpful to specify whether biometric information, such as face recognition data, is gathered during the procedure. Ensuring that the system anonymizes data or does not collect personally identifying information (PII) would strengthen the approach and make it more compliant with the severe privacy rules that govern video surveillance and human flow monitoring in many European nations.

In conclusion, it is considered that the well-written article is suitable for publication with the invitation to delve into the "privacy" topic for a possible in-depth research.

Author Response

Comment 1: 

One minor aspect to examine is whether the proposed technology might conflict with current European privacy legislation. Specifically, it may be worthwhile to investigate how the system can be implemented in accordance with stringent privacy regulations, such as the General Data Protection Regulation. Although the article does not address this problem, it would be helpful to specify whether biometric information, such as face recognition data, is gathered during the procedure. Ensuring that the system anonymizes data or does not collect personally identifying information (PII) would strengthen the approach and make it more compliant with the severe privacy rules that govern video surveillance and human flow monitoring in many European nations.

Response 1:
Thanks for pointing this out. We have reviewed the privacy section to be adequately detailed on lines 216-221.