A Comprehensive Evaluation of Walkability in Historical Cities: The Case of Xi’an and Kyoto
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Title of the paper, “A comprehensive evaluation of walkability in historical cities: the case of Xi’an and Kyoto”: My suggestion is to shorten the title and change it to “Evaluation of walkability in historical cities: the case of Xi’an and Kyoto”.
Please include “pedestrians” in the Keywords.
Section 1. Introduction: It is a well-written Section. My suggestion is to divide the specific Section into subsections, for the benefit of the reader, as follows: 1.1. Terminology (including walkability, historical cities etc.) 1.2. Pedestrians in historical cities 1.3. Problem statement. Please include the structure of the paper (Sections) at the end of the Section 1.
There are two terms used in your paper, “historical cities” and “historical centers”. A city may not be a “historical city” but it may include a “historical center”. I kindly ask you to explicitly describe the above-mentioned concept in the Introduction. My suggestion is to add references in your literature review concerning the “historical centers” like Campisi, T.; Basbas, S.; Tesoriere, G.; Trouva, M.; Papas, T.; Mrak, I. How to Create Walking Friendly Cities. A Multi-Criteria Analysis of the Central Open Market Area of Rijeka. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9470. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12229470
Table 1: Please include “n.a.” (not available or not applicable” in the empty cells of the specific Table.
Section 3. Materials and Methods: My suggestion is to include a Data Flow Chart describing all your methodological steps (from the identification of the research gap and the literature review to the analysis, results and conclusions), so that the reader can obtain a clear overview of your research from the early beginning of your paper.
My suggestion is to include two general maps (one for the city of Xi’an and one for the city of Kyoto) at an appropriate scale.
Section 3.1.3: I think that the number of auditors is rather small for such a survey in both cities (10 and 13 auditors in total). My suggestion is to fully justify these numbers within your manuscript by using references from other similar-type surveys worldwide.
My suggestion is to include the source of the geographical background (map) in the case of Figures 1, 2, 3, 4, 8 and 9.
Please note that Table 4 must be Table 3. Please correct accordingly the numbering of the specific Table and the next Tables.
The paper lacks a Section dedicated to “Discussion”. My suggestion is to add such a Section before Section 5. Conclusions. In the proposed Section, please try to investigate whether your results/findings comply with the results/findings of other case studies worldwide (and if “yes” to what extent). Please also include the respective references.
Section 5. Conclusions: My suggestion is to carry out a stakeholders’ analysis and then address all your policy recommendations to the specific stakeholders (who will benefit from your work and how). My suggestion is to have a subsection dedicated to policy recommendations for the benefit of the reader. Please also add the directions for future research on the topic of your work.
Please correct some typos within your manuscript (e.g., Conclusions, line 922, Howev-er, line 923, com-bining).
Author Response
Revised Paper Submission for Sustainability,
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to thank you for your time and effort to review this manuscript. Please consider the attached manuscript that has been revised according to the reviews. Response Report to reviewer's comments follows this letter. If there are any inquiries, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Yours sincerely,
(also on behalf of Hirokazu Abe, Noriko Otsuka, Kensuke Yasufuku and Akira Takahashi)
Kun Yuan
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors presented a methodology to measure the walkability in a neighbourhood in two cities. The paper is well written, and I have only a few comments.
Major:
1. With regard to walkability, there is a lot more scientific research as well as commercial products/services available. I would prefer if the literature review had highlight the vast amount of knowledge readily accessible.
2. I would like to have seen a discussion section in the paper where your method is directly compared to the methods used by others.
3. Please also add a further section which outline the limitations of your method. While you do mention various other limitations throughout the paper, the reader would benefit from having an overview in one place.
Minor:
4. Why were the pictures taken so many years ago (Spring 2019, line 354). Google does state on their website version of Google ‘street view’ the month and year when the picture was taken. It might be good to check on the website and API whether these pictures are the same to get an approximation of the month and year when the pictures were taken.
Author Response
Revised Paper Submission for Sustainability,
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to thank you for your time and effort to review this manuscript. Please consider the attached manuscript that has been revised according to the reviews. Response Report to reviewer's comments follows this letter. If there are any inquiries, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Yours sincerely,
(also on behalf of Hirokazu Abe, Noriko Otsuka, Kensuke Yasufuku and Akira Takahashi)
Kun Yuan
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you for the opportunity to review your study. Please see my comments below.
1. Introduction
Since the last part of the first paragraph gives a hint to link walkable environment and historical cities, it might be better to connect with the third paragraph (starting line 49) directly. If so, the second paragraph (lines 40-48) might be a part of first paragraph.
Lines 73-75: it is necessary to provide references regarding this statement.
Line 79-80: each case city comes from different country. What are the similarities in history and built environment? I understand thesis two cities are picked among oldest cities from China and Japan, but international readers might not have background information or context of these.
2. Literature Review
The authors may consider following references:
Ewing, R.; Handy, S. Measuring the Unmeasurable: Urban Design Qualities Related to Walkability. Journal of Urban Design. 2009, 14, 65–84: this could be a good support for your selected variables.
Noh, S.Assessing Active Living Potential: Case Study of Jacksonville, Florida. Urban Science. 2018, 2(44): this includes some of methodological review regarding walkability including space syntax.
3. Materials and Methods
3.1.1. Survey Area: case study area might be better?
Again, in addition to key maps (figure 1 and 2), could you provide a little more context of these including current land use/demographic information (if any)?
3.1.4. Figure 6 and 7: If possible, consider to change colors for building, sky, and bicycle since these are are very similar which is green.
4. Results
Figure 8 and 9: what are the numbers along with the point? the descriptions of these explain local integration.
Table 4: It might be better to compare: Xian vs Kyoto, Xian vs Kyoto (historical), Xian vs Kyoto (modern).
Figure 10 and 11: Kyoto results show historical and modern, but Xian shows two historical blocks and one modern. Could you explain why you split Xian case?
Figure 12-15: please consider to have key maps for these street view images.
5. Conclusion
It could be better to have Discussion chapter to show: summary (Lines 858-915) and how this study is different from/is similar previous studies (Lines 916-933).
Author Response
Revised Paper Submission for Sustainability,
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to thank you for your time and effort to review this manuscript. Please consider the attached manuscript that has been revised according to the reviews. Response Report to reviewer's comments follows this letter. If there are any inquiries, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
Kun Yuan
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Thank you for this interesting research. This study aims to identify areas for improvement in the historical built environment of the historical cities that will promote and facilitate walking activities. Hereby are some comments that may help you improve on it:
(1) Please add the reasons for choosing the two historical cities in Asia, and why choose Xi'an (China) and Kyoto (Japan) in this study. What is the comparison basis between the two cities? or based on what reasons? I suggest that the authors could explain clearer.
(2) The authors mentioned that you “selected the most relevant macro and micro indicators in order to conduct a comparative evaluation using street view images, so as to evaluate historical areas more comprehensively and accurately.” What are the advantages or disadvantages compared using meso indicators? It is suggested that the authors could further clarify this point.
(3) This article should reinforce the discussion and implications behind the data analysis.
(4) The results are fruitful, but how about the contributions from the Asia perspective to global perspective?
I hope that these notes are helpful in reviewing your article.
Author Response
Revised Paper Submission for Sustainability,
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to thank you for your time and effort to review this manuscript. Please consider the attached manuscript that has been revised according to the reviews. Response Report to reviewer's comments follows this letter. If there are any inquiries, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Yours sincerely,
(also on behalf of Hirokazu Abe, Noriko Otsuka, Kensuke Yasufuku and Akira Takahashi)
Kun Yuan
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I would like to express my deepest thanks to you because you have carefully addressed my comments. I really appreciate your effort.
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you for addressing my comments. One comment I have is: please provide high resolution (at least 300 DPI) figures for your manuscript.
