Analysis and optimization of 15-minute community life circle based on supply and demand matching: A case study of Shanghai

Haoyuan Wu; Liangxu Wang; Zhonghao Zhang; Jun Gao

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0256904

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMay 6, 2021
23 Jun 2021 Decision Letter - Feng Chen, Editor PONE-D-21-14500 Analysis and optimization of 15-minute community life circle based on supply and demand matching: A case study of Shanghai PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Wang, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 07 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Feng Chen Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf. 2. We note that Figures 1,2,4,5 and 6 in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright. We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission: a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figures 1,2,4,5 and 6 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text: “I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.” Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission. In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].” b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only. The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful: USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/ The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/ Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/ Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/ USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/# Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/ [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: It is an interesting paper analyzing the 15-minute community life cycle in Shanghai. The research is well-conducted; however, some key concerns need to be solved before its publication. 1.The research background is kind of insufficient. The readers may need to know more about the concept of the “15-minute community life cycle”. Maybe adding a paragraph describing current policies and similar policies in other cities/countries may help the readers better understand the concept. I would also recommend the authors to add more content in key factors of the concept (for example, what kinds of facilities are important for this concept? It might be better to explain the design of the models), so the readers will have no problems in understanding the following analysis. 2.It may be clearer to add a data section in materials and methods to introduce the data sources systematically. 3.This research has the potential to be further developed, while the experience in Shanghai may be suitable for other cities in China or even in other countries. Maybe the author could add more general discussions on policy implications that are not limited to Shanghai's local context. Reviewer #2: This paper evaluates Shanghai’s 15min-community life circle (15min-CLC) from the perspective of supply and demand matching. Based on multisource big dataset, they analyze comprehensive service convenience of multiple types of infrastructure service facilities and calculate their supply-demand matching index. The paper is meaningful, since it provides an empirical basis, which follows the buzzwords of people-oriented urban construction and sustainable urban development. However, some detailed need to be revised. 1. Global knowledge contribution: PLOS ONE is an international journal. This paper needs to engage with the wider readership of the journal. How to link the findings/conclusions in this paper with the previous findings/conclusions from other countries? 2. In the method section. It is unnecessary to explain the meanings of Wk and Dk twice. 3. The color distribution of Figure 5 is unclear. Please change the color to make it easy to identify areas with high, medium, and low values. ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?** For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256904.r001
Revision 1
3 Aug 2021 Author Response Responds to journal requirements: As required by the journal, all pictures and content should be published in compliance with CC4.0. Therefore, we replaced the boundary data of the maps included in the article (Figures 1.2.4.5 and 6) with open-access Nature Earth vector boundary data and added a text description of the source of the image in the corresponding title of the image. Responds to the reviewer’s comments: Reviewer #1: 1. Response to comment: The research background is kind of insufficient. The readers may need to know more about the concept of the “15-minute community life cycle”. Maybe adding a paragraph describing current policies and similar policies in other cities/countries may help the readers better understand the concept. I would also recommend the authors to add more content in key factors of the concept (for example, what kinds of facilities are important for this concept? It might be better to explain the design of the models), so the readers will have no problems in understanding the following analysis. Response: After considering your suggestions, we re-written the introduction, including its content and the order of paragraphs. In the first paragraph, we have supplemented the description of the concept of Japanese community life circle, such as ‘that is, life centers …… according to a certain proportion,’; We have also expanded the description of the development of theoretical research on community life circles in European and American countries in the second paragraph, such as ‘In European and American countries, …… with more complete life services[5].’, and other existing policies related to the 15-minute community living circle, such as ‘In the post-epidemic era, …… as a pandemic economic recovery tool[7].’ In addition, as you suggested, we have also added a description of the factors that should be emphasized in the concept of 15-minute community living circle, such as ‘Based on the existing domestic and foreign theoretical and empirical research on the 15-minute community living circle, ……, but also the characteristics of the population and the population's demand for basic service facilities.’ in the penultimate paragraph of this section. 2. Response to comment: It may be clearer to add a data section in materials and methods to introduce the data sources systematically. Response: After considering your suggestions, we think it is very appropriate to write the description of the data in the method and material section of the article as a separate subsection. Therefore, in the materials and methods section, we merged the original three parts of "POI", "urban road network" and "population" into the "data" subsection. We also added detailed descriptions to the existing data descriptions in the text. 3. Response to comment: This research has the potential to be further developed, while the experience in Shanghai may be suitable for other cities in China or even in other countries. Maybe the author could add more general discussions on policy implications that are not limited to Shanghai's local context. Response: After considering your suggestions, we have supplemented the relevant content in the optimization policy section, and have also made corresponding changes to the relevant titles of the chapters. In the ‘15min-CLC optimization strategy based on the perspective of supply improvement’ part, we added ‘The implementation of the community business model has also been initially explored at home and abroad. ……, quantity and use efficiency of shopping service facilities.’ to illustrate the domestic and foreign discussions on the development of community business models and the relevant recommendations of this article on the promotion of this model; In the next part, we supplemented the existing case of the 15-minute community life circle open sharing plan, and expounded on the implementation of the suggestions proposed in this article for the optimization of the existing plan, such as ‘The functional sharing and opening of community space have always been the direction of the 15min-CLC. ……, to plan a 15-minute community living circle in a way of shared use and joint planning.’. Reviewer #2: 1. Response to comment: This paper needs to engage with the wider readership of the journal. How to link the findings/conclusions in this paper with the previous findings/conclusions from other countries? Response: As you suggested, we have added some existing policies and cases of other countries regarding the 15-minute community living circle in the optimization policy section, and supplemented the future optimization directions for these policies and cases proposed in this article, such as ‘In the future, the hierarchical spatial layout of physical shopping service facilities can be optimized ……, quantity and use efficiency of shopping service facilities.’ in the part of ‘15min-CLC optimization strategy based on the perspective of supply improvement’ and ‘In the future, for various regions at home and abroad, ……, to plan a 15-minute community living circle in a way of shared use and joint planning.’ in the part of ‘15min-CLC optimization strategy based on the perspective of demand matching’. 2. Response to comment: In the method section. It is unnecessary to explain the meanings of W_k and D_k twice. Response: We are very sorry for the negligence of the repeated explanation in the text. For this we have kept the explanation of the parameters W_k and D_k that appeared at the beginning (in the ‘Weighted kernel density estimation and 15min-CLC infrastructure service facilities mixed diversity index’), and deleted the explanation of W_k and D_k that appeared in the "Population matching measurement model and 15min-CLC infrastructure service facility population supporting index". 3. Response to comment: The color distribution of Figure 5 is unclear. Please change the color to make it easy to identify areas with high, medium, and low values. Response: It is really true as you suggested that the color distribution in Figure 5 should be optimized. Therefore, we changed the color bar, adjusted the color configuration, and remade Figure 5. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: response.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256904.r002
18 Aug 2021 Decision Letter - Feng Chen, Editor Analysis and optimization of 15-minute community life circle based on supply and demand matching: A case study of Shanghai PONE-D-21-14500R1 Dear Dr. Wang, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Feng Chen Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: The revision has addressed all my concerns and comments well. I do not have any more comments on it. In my opinion I suggest to accept it. ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?** For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256904.r003
Formally Accepted
23 Aug 2021 Acceptance Letter - Feng Chen, Editor PONE-D-21-14500R1 Analysis and optimization of 15-minute community life circle based on supply and demand matching: A case study of Shanghai Dear Dr. Wang: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Feng Chen Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256904.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .