Temporal Dynamics of Citizen-Reported Urban Challenges: A Comprehensive Time Series Analysis

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

1. Summary

We express our gratitude to the Reviewer for the thorough and insightful review of our manuscript. We have thoroughly addressed all of the concerns raised by the referee. The detailed responses and corresponding revisions in the resubmitted files can be found below.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Is the research design appropriate?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Are the methods adequately described?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Are the results clearly presented?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors used the time series analysis to scrutinize citizen interactions with the coordinate-based problem mapping platform in the Municipality of Patras in Greece. For example, they studied the temporal dynamics of reported urban issues, with a specific focus on identifying recurring patterns through the lens of seasonality. Analyzing seasonality in the dataset unveiled variations in urban issues, peaking in summer and decreasing in winter, offering crucial insights into the influence of external factors like tourism, construction, and weather patterns. The works are interesting and important. For example, it provides valuable insights for city stakeholders, enabling informed decision-making and predictions regarding future urban challenges. So I recommend it to publish in Big Data and Cognitive Computing.

Comments 1: It will be better if the authors add some time series models in the paper.

For example, in Section Results, in order to explain Figures 1-13, the authors can add some time series models or mathematical models.

Response 1:

Thank you for your insightful feedback on our paper. We appreciate your suggestion to include time series models or mathematical models in Section Results to explain Figures 1-13. We have carefully considered your recommendation and attempted to integrate different models such as ARIMA, SARIMA, and Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) Networks Model into our analysis to provide additional insights. However, upon evaluation, we found that the results obtained from the models did not provide valuable insights that could contribute meaningfully to the discussion in the article. Despite our efforts, the output of the models did not yield significant improvements or additional interpretations compared to our existing analysis.

We acknowledge that the incorporation of time series models is essential for comprehensive analysis in this context. We are currently investigating the reasons why the models did not yield valuable insights in our dataset. This exploration will be the focus of our future work, as understanding the limitations of different models and identifying the factors that influence their performance are crucial steps in advancing the understanding of urban issues.

As an example, we have attached the output of the ARIMA model, including the forecast values, in the supplementary material for your reference.

We hope this transparent approach demonstrates our commitment to rigor and thoroughness in our research endeavors.

Comments 2: Compared to the existing literature, what are the advantages of the model and methodology of the authors' study? The authors should give some remarks in the paper.

Response 2: The comparison has been carried out, and pertinent observations have been included within the methodology section (located at the bottom of page 19).

Comments 3: The references should be revised by the requirements of bibliography style. For example,

Line 853-854, The reference 1 should be updated.

Line 872-873, “Jingrui Ju, Luning 872 Liu, Yuqiang Feng. (2018)……” should be another reference.

Line 931-933, “Jnr B.A., Sylva W., Watat J.K., Misra S. A……” should be anther reference..

Response 3: The references have been reviewed and updated according to the requirements of the bibliography style.

At last, we would like to inform the Reviewer that minor edits have been made to improve the English language.

Additionally, we have addressed the concerns raised by the second Reviewer by implementing the following changes:

1.       The paragraph §1.1 has been significantly shortened to 105 rows for improved conciseness.

2.       In paragraph §2 (at the bottom of page 5), we have enhanced the description of the database used in our study, providing a detailed explanation of the Sense City platform, including its purpose, functionality, and significance in facilitating citizen engagement with municipal services.

3.       Redundant information has been removed from page 6 after the clarification about anonymity. This ensures a more concise and focused presentation.

4.       Symbols and formulas have been integrated, providing a more concise and mathematical representation of key concepts, enhancing readability and comprehension. For instance, we introduced a formula f(t)= T/ N to quantify the frequency of reports over time, improving the technical clarity of our methodology.

5.       Furthermore, we have revised Paragraphs §3 and §4 by adding Table 2 (page 11), Table 3 (page 13), and Table 4 (page 19) to help readers better understand the characteristics of the study.

The revised version has been seamlessly integrated into the manuscript.

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

1. Summary

We express our gratitude to the Reviewer for the thorough and insightful review of our manuscript. We have thoroughly addressed all of the concerns raised by the referee. The detailed responses and corresponding revisions in the resubmitted files can be found below.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Is the research design appropriate?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Are the methods adequately described?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Are the results clearly presented?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: "General comment

The manuscript focuses an interesting application of time series analysis, but in my opinion some revisions are necessary

At the first all, I invite the authors to eliminate many redundant sentences in order to make easy the reader of the manuscript.

The paragraph §1.1 may be eliminated, it is too long (178 rows), a short summary of its may be added to introduction

In paragraph §2, a more detailed description of database has to be added while many redundant parts may be eliminated. The authors have to make an effort to substitute the descriptions with symbols and formulas

Paragraphs §3 and §4 may be summarized and many comments to results may be better highlighted with tables or different format in the text, in this form the reader has many difficult to understand the many characteristics of the study.

Response 1: Thank you to the reviewer for highlighting these points, with which we wholeheartedly agree. In response, we undertook a comprehensive revision. 

Based on the reviewer's feedback, the paragraph §1.1 has been significantly shortened to 105 rows.

In addition to the aforementioned revisions, we have made further enhancements in paragraph §2 (at the bottom of page 5) to address the concerns raised:

·         Database Description Enhancement: We have expanded the description of the database utilized in our study, providing a detailed explanation of the Sense City platform. This includes its purpose, functionality, and significance in facilitating citizen engagement with municipal services.

·         Redundancy Reduction: We have made concerted efforts to streamline the text and eliminate redundant information. For example, redundant information after the clarification about anonymity has been removed from page 6. This redundant content was adequately addressed earlier in the text, ensuring a more concise and focused presentation.

·         Symbol and Formula Usage: The integration of symbols and formula is executed, providing a more concise and mathematical representation of key concepts, which enhances readability and comprehension. We have introduced a formula f(t)= T/ N to quantify the frequency of reports over time. This addition enhances the technical clarity of our methodology and provides readers with a more comprehensive understanding of our approach.

Furthermore, we revised Paragraphs §3 and §4 by adding Table 2 (page 11), Table 3 (page 13), and Table 4 (page 19) in order for readers to better understand the characteristics of the study.

At last, we would like to inform the Reviewer that the concerns raised by the second Reviewer have been addressed by implementing the following changes:

1.       A comparison of the study with the existing literature has been conducted, and relevant observations have been incorporated within the methodology section (located at the bottom of page 19).

2.       The references have been reviewed and updated in accordance with the requirements of the bibliography style.

The revised version has been seamlessly integrated into the manuscript.