PONE-D-22-18649Study on the Sustainable Renewal Strategy of Ancient Towns with Canals on the Basis of the Topological Structure Analysis of Streets and Lanes: A Case Study of the Xixing Ancient TownPLOS 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 Sep 01 2022 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: https://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,

Dragan Pamucar

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 suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service. 

Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services.  If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free.

Upon resubmission, please provide the following:

The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript

A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file)

A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file)”

3. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. 

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

4. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. 

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

5. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

6. We note that Figures 1 - 7 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 - 7 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: Partly

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: 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: No

Reviewer #3: 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: No

Reviewer #3: 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: This paper discusses the spatial syntax to analyze the topological structure of roads and alleys in the ancient city of Xixing in the Zhedong canal as a case object. I think this topic is interesting regard to most situations in urban development. But this paper should be improved in order to publishing requirement in the international journal. Specific comments are noted below:

1. Authors(s) already provided the abstract’s content (the purpose/background, method used, results). However, please provide clear methods on the studies that have been conducted. Please make it short and sharp. In addition, I recommend writing a clear statement about methodology. It is not necessary to write the steps of the method, but briefly explain the method used, analysis, and tools used. Write the keywords in alphabetical order.

2. In the initial paragraph in the introduction the problem is less clear from the author's point of view. It should refer after summarizing some of the results from the existing references. Some sentences that need to be corrected such as "...As a result, how to conduct innovative research on the space protection and vitality renewal of ancient towns with canals in the new historical period has become an important topic for the continuity and long-term development of those ancient towns in the modern era…” Further explanation is needed in this statement. The introduction is something that explains the contents of the entire manuscript. I suggest entering the contribution section in the introduction (contribution is part of introduction). Make the sentences flow and adjust the sentence by referring to the reference described in the initial paragraph in the introduction.

3. Did you mean Yoshinobu Ashihara? (line 77).

4. Literature review is a section that explains the basis of the study conducted. It is necessary to explain which parts of the reference are used in the methodology and then used to carry out the analysis. How the author(s) explains this into the methodology is important. It is highly recommended to summarize each part of the literature review by relating it to the research topic being carried out. State at the end of each paragraph each literature review (lines 90, 104, and 127).

5. Paper for international journals will be read by readers who do not understand the location, so give information in the form of maps of Xixing, China, and which parts of China are studied.

6. Explain with a statement at the end of the discussion section that explains the analysis of the discussion that has been described. Therefore, it is necessary to distinguish which part of the results and which part of the discussion. Make it in its own part.

7. Conclusion is the answer to the question asked in the introduction. So, the conclusion in this article should answer what is being questioned. Need to do a sharper explanation is actually what problems to be answered. In my opinion, there is no conclusion and it is too long for conclusion section, but it is also necessary to answer that should be at the end of the introduction. Please avoid writing conclusions in points, make in paragraph sentences. Two to three paragraphs for the conclusion section are sufficient.

8. Each figure requires a caption and explanation in the image, for example adding text to the captured image calculation from DepthMap.

9. In general, systematics in writing of scientific articles is Introduction, Literature review, Research Methods, Results and Discussion, and Conclusions. Systematics should be used in writing articles in this paper need to be improved.

This paper actually is an interesting topic to be raised; the author(s) tries to contribute the study regarding spatial syntax in the form of integration, choice, synergy, and clarity of streets and alleys, in order to obtain an update strategy and conclusions about the spatial vitality of a city. But this paper requires adjustment to the structure of a journal; it is necessary to follow the structure of the existing journal writing in general, so that the flow of writing becomes easy to understand.

Reviewer #2: Although the authors have attempted to address the reviewers' comments provided in the previous round of review, I still think the paper is far below the publishable standard for a top-tier journal. Critical issues to have addressed include:

1) The title of the paper is too wordy. It should have been revised.

2) The choice of the study area has not been well justified.

3) The paper is still not adequately referenced. For example, sources of information is missing for lines 136-148. References are also needed for lines 165-166. Many other places in the paper have missing references.

4) A clear conceptual framework for the research is missing in the paper.

5) The theme of the paper should rest on renewal of ancient towns. However, the literature review does not cover much literature related to that area.

6) Why was the "space syntax theory" chosen? Why not other theories or models?

7) What are the limitations of the research? How do these limitations affect the interpretations of the research findings?

8) The paper has a lot typos and grammatical errors. The authors should have the paper proofread by a professional English writer before submission.

Reviewer #3: The manuscript deals with an interesting research topic, having a well organized but poorly addressed research study. Therefore, there is room for significant methodological, morphological, and argumentation improvements to be made, prior it to be accepted for publication at the PLOS ONE journal. To this end the following review comments can be considered.

1)A rough estimation of chronological flash-back to the century of the Xixing ancient town’ foundation, it can be provided in the Abstract section (in approximate century B.C.).

2)In case of some input data or results derived from the analysis, then, a selected and representative portion of them they can be collectively denoted in Abstract section, enabling a more precise representation of the relevant analysis and findings in the Abstract extract, accordingly.

3)At the Introduction section authors are recommended to reorganize the relevant theoretical coverage into two distinct and separated subsections, relevant to two subsections/subheadings of: a) Geographical overview of ancient towns in China and b) Chronological overview of ancients towns establishment and evolution to the today Chinese context. The spatial characteristics approached in section 2. Literature Review are well organized. However, a missing information of both narratives of sections Introduction, Literature Review is that there is absolutely missing numerical information-outcomes that could be collectively represented in the form of a Table at the end of section 2. There is not need authors to recall the narrative statements, but to enrich them with numerical information fitting to the already, or to-be-developed, subsections of main sections 1 and 2. These data of 8-10 citations are adequate.

4)At the Methodology section authors are recommended to briefly represent the land uses of the ancient town examined, in terms of: a) agricultural zone and area occupied (in km^2, or as percentage of the total area of the town), urban zones: pedestrian, streets and lanes (in km^2, or as percentage of the total area of the town), irrigation system and rainfall profile (in mm), domesticated area.

5)In my opinion the heading/section of “Research Design” it is part of the Methodology section, thus, it can be transferred in it, accordingly. Besides, the main frame of headings should be only that of (adding those main headings, where missing): 1. Introduction, 2. Literature Review, 3. Methodology, 4. Results, 5. Discussion, 6. Conclusions and Future Research Orientations. Then, other main headings can be degraded to subheadings’ relocated into the aforementioned headings-frame. Moreover, starting from the 1. Introduction and end to 6. Conclusions and Future Research Orientations section, all embodied subheadings can be titled as: 1.1, 1.2, ……., 2.1, 2.2, …..3.1, 3.2, ….., 4.1, ….4.2, ……., in successive order and numbering, not to be plenary given.

6)At the Discussion section should be reorganized focusing on the today reflections and commercial commitments/services offered, in alignment with the stated research objective: “spatial data such as the number of commercial entities on each street segment, the area, area width, depth of single building and spatial syntax parameters is carried out”. To this end the following key-determinants can be briefly outlined: a) visiting the ancient towns in China, as an inseparable part of the today tourism industry, b) commercial, manufacturing and industrial activities and products/goods’ offered, c) the role of technology in the main community uses: agricultural sector, irrigation technologies, manufacturing and public services accommodated, d) role of governmental policies and motivations scheduled in supporting the ancient towns heritage, protection, and development of related to infrastructure at the nearby, to ancient towns, areas in China. To this end the “Further Discussion”:

-It can be detached, “upgraded as main section”, and presented as separated “Discussion” section, since it contains purely argumentative statements, though all of them have to be accompanied by cross-citations that are currently missing.

-It can be accompanied by numerical information, data, quantitative results, enabling a more precise and comprehensive “guidance” of research outcomes, proposals, and recommendations to areas and contexts of the same research- and spatial- characteristics to be derived and applied.

7)Since Figures and all subfigures of 2 up to 6 are graphically liking to each other, it is highly recommended authors to either provide a more detailed information/interpretation of the comparing and contrasting them, revealing what are the distinct characteristics from the one subfigure to the other one. To this end authors can update these graphs by adding indicators of presentation in the form of arrows into these maps, it could be highly supportive and recommended.

8)There is a long arrangement of numbers of 6 or more decimal digits and fluctuated precision, like that of lines 205, 217, 229-230, but also in Tables data. Therefore, revising and fixing the precision of all data to only 3 decimal digits it is highly recommended for the scopes of this manuscript.

9)Figure 7 can be presented in a white-coloured background, in better visual contrast with the trend-line dots to be achieved.

10)Literature enrichment with more and relevant published papers it is recommended, thus, checking and citing among the below listed studies, where missing and where matching to the revised manuscript, it can be undertaken.

Scopus

EXPORT DATE:12 Jul 2022

Wang, Z., Zhang, H., Yang, X., Li, G.

36469470000;57373042100;57373940300;57373581900;

Neighborhood streets as places of older adults’ active travel and social interaction – A study in Daokou ancient town

(2022) Journal of Transport and Health, 24, art. no. 101309, . Cited 1 time.

https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85121263625&doi=10.1016%2fj.jth.2021.101309&partnerID=40&md5=708e7f95f3c811844c51f5b25830e74f

DOI: 10.1016/j.jth.2021.101309

AFFILIATIONS: Department of Architecture, Henan University, Kaifeng, China;

Department of Architecture, Henan University of Technology, Zhengzhou, China;

Department of Architecture, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China

ABSTRACT: Introduction: Neighborhood streets are convenient places for older adults to engage in behaviors for active living, such as walking (active travel) and chatting with neighbors (social interaction). Street environments and older adults' active living in ancient towns need investigation. Taking Daokou ancient town in China as an example, this research observed older adults’ active travel and social interaction on two neighborhood streets and investigated the difference in social engagement between older-adult groups on different streets. Methods: On-site non-participant observation was conducted for four weekdays with seven 30-min sections per day. ...................

Manakina, A., Nikolaeva, V.

56134235500;57218826705;

Formation of sustainable development of bicycle and pedestrian zones in a modern city

(2020) IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 890 (1), art. no. 012179, .

https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85090348649&doi=10.1088%2f1757-899X%2f890%2f1%2f012179&partnerID=40&md5=c0bf49b51025943e083d8eaf6c93b826

DOI: 10.1088/1757-899X/890/1/012179

AFFILIATIONS: Industrial University, Tyumen, 625000, Russian Federation

ABSTRACT: The article is devoted to the current theme of bicycle and pedestrian space development in the developing city, as well as to attracting residents to the landscaped parts of the city for active recreation. The authors consider various types of activity, the implementation of which requires landscaped and safe areas, as well as enumerate the positive aspects associated with the introduction of active recreation in the daily life of residents, therefore, improve the quality of life and increase investment attractiveness of the region. ...............

Yu, X., Ma, S., Cheng, K., Kyriakopoulos, G.L.

53865793000;57218326388;57218326647;6603382498;

An evaluation system for sustainable urban space development based in green urbanism principles-a case study based on the Qin-Ba mountain area in China

(2020) Sustainability (Switzerland), 12 (14), art. no. 5703, . Cited 24 times.

https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85088828018&doi=10.3390%2fsu12145703&partnerID=40&md5=f4c407b3b707d7b77b1350577b4e98e5

DOI: 10.3390/su12145703

AFFILIATIONS: School of Architecture, Chang'an University, Xi'an, 710061, China;

Electric Power Division, Photometry Laboratory, School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, National Technical University of Athens, Athens, 15780, Greece

ABSTRACT: Since the 20th century, the deterioration of the ecological environment around the world has challenged urban space construction. With the development of urbanization, the consumption of resources and energy has increased, the level of biodiversity has decreased, environmental pollution is approaching the critical level, and the contradiction between human habitat activity and ecological environment has become increasingly prominent. The sustainable development of urban space along with its economic and social benefits, taking into account the quality of life and ecological environment, has become a new and important subject that needs to be explored. In this study, the indices of the evaluation system for sustainable urban spatial development in regions with underdeveloped economies but rich in ecological resources are arranged in sequence through the systematic coupling analysis of collaborative evaluation information and a quantitative analysis. The influences of urban space elements on sustainable urban development are disclosed. On the basis of the generated data, an evaluation system for sustainable urban spatial development with a complete set of information is proposed. The proposed system is applicable to urban spatial development evaluation in regions in China with underdeveloped economies but rich in ecological capital. First, the basic concept of system coupling is introduced, and a coupling relationship between urban sustainable development and urban space is proposed. Second, the elements of urban space and the sustainable development in the Qin-Ba mountain area are extracted, and the precedence diagram method is used to construct a sustainable evaluation system for urban space development in the Qin-Ba mountain area. Third, the sustainable evaluation process of urban spatial development is proposed. Finally, the sustainable evaluation system for urban spatial development in the Qin-Ba mountain area is applied to evaluate the urban spatial development in Shangluo, Qin-Ling Mountains, China. The results show that, among the investigated 14 indicators, the proportion of industrial land use mainly influences sustainable urban spatial development. As for the rest of the index factors, per capita green land area and green coverage ratio of built-up areas, per capita urban construction land area, proportion of forestry area, greening rate of built-up areas, total industrial dust emission density, proportion of cultivated area, and average volume fraction of residential areas are the secondary influencing factors of sustainable urban spatial development. The evaluation system in this research is constructed with the three aspects of "green coordination", "green development", and "green sustainability" of sustainable urban spatial development, and it complements the evaluation contents of urban-rural ecological space coordination, land resource protection, and green development community, and so on...............

Nomura, R., Shan, S., Mori, S.

57191923705;57204313367;37112638600;

Analyzing spatial structure of traditional houses in old towns with tourism development and its transformation toward sustainable development of residential environments in hexia old town, in China

(2018) Sustainability (Switzerland), 10 (10), art. no. 3809, . Cited 6 times.

https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85055187483&doi=10.3390%2fsu10103809&partnerID=40&md5=69acac765079e477ed50bff363e6ac4c

DOI: 10.3390/su10103809

AFFILIATIONS: Faculty of Engineering, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, 060-8628, Japan;

Shanghai Urban Construction Design and Research Institute (Group) Co., Ltd., Shanghai, 200125, China

ABSTRACT: This study elucidates the spatial structure of traditional houses, and its transformation toward sustainable development of residential environments in old towns that are currently the focus of tourism development initiatives. Hexia old town in Huai'an District, China, was chosen for this study involving a field survey, questionnaire survey, and interviews. Data analysis identified three periods of residential transformation and three patterns of the residential transformation process. In all cases, there was low awareness of building conservation measures and lack of tourism development by the government, which has translated into ongoing residential transformations according to the demands of daily life. However, in the interests of tourism development, some businesses have started making use of vacant residences and traditional homes, and the relative proximity to work and home imply sustainability of residents' lifestyles under these conditions. .............

Dičiunaite-Rauktiene, R., Gurskiene, V., Burinskiene, M., Maliene, V.

57201215996;8963424300;10040854900;24332653600;

The usage and perception of pedestrian zones in Lithuanian Cities: Multiple Criteria and comparative analysis

(2018) Sustainability (Switzerland), 10 (3), art. no. 818, . Cited 9 times.

https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85044007619&doi=10.3390%2fsu10030818&partnerID=40&md5=e9d368d976fc11b7515f76720018ed38

DOI: 10.3390/su10030818

AFFILIATIONS: Institute of Land Management and Geomatics, Faculty ofWater and Land Management, Aleksandras Stulginskis University, Studentu 11, Akademija, Kaunas distr., LT-53361, Lithuania;

Road Department, Faculty of Environmental Engineering, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Sauletekio ave. 11, Vilnius, LT-10223, Lithuania;

Department of the Built Environment, The Built Environment and Sustainable Technologies Research Institute, Faculty of Engineering and Technology, Liverpool John Moores University, Byrom street, Liverpool, L3 3AF, United Kingdom

ABSTRACT: As pedestrian zones are public spaces in urban areas, they are important in terms of meeting people's needs. However, it is worth noting that attention should be paid not only to the development of the physical infrastructure, but also to a sustainable balance between the socio-economic and environmental aspects. To guide urban planning and management initiatives towards more sustainable patterns, it is essential to re-examine the already existing characteristics of cities, establishing how they are used and perceived by inhabitants. The present research suggests environmental, economic and social criteria that determine a greater vitality of pedestrian zones in cities and better life quality for the inhabitants. A questionnaire survey was used to assess common attitudes regarding the research topic in major cities in Lithuania. The multiple criteria decision-making COPRAS (COmplex PRoportional ASsessment) method was used for the formation of a priority queue. ...............

Yang, F.

36607241700;

Investigating wintertime pedestrian wind environment and user perception in dense residential neighbourhood in a city of hot-summer and cold-winter climate zone, China

(2017) Indoor and Built Environment, 26 (3), pp. 392-408. Cited 3 times.

https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85018181386&doi=10.1177%2f1420326X15620257&partnerID=40&md5=3afd66a42594b9f0e83e188c3d22fbdc

DOI: 10.1177/1420326X15620257

AFFILIATIONS: College of Architecture and Urban Planning (CAUP), Tongji University, 1239 Siping Road, Shanghai, 200092, China;

Key Laboratory of Ecology and Energy-Saving Study of Dense Habitat, Tongji University, Ministry of Education, Shanghai, China

ABSTRACT: Urban wind environment could have an impact on pedestrian's comfort and safety, as well as pollution dispersion and building energy consumption. For cities in the hot-summer and cold-winter climate zone of China, a proper design residential neighbourhoods is important to facilitate urban ventilation in hot and transient seasons and to protect users from strong winds in cold season. This paper reports the results of field measurements and a questionnaire survey in a large residential development with three different types of housings. Micrometeorology measurement was carried out at the pedestrian height level as well as at a rooftop reference station. Pedestrians' subjective perception on wind and thermal comfort was recorded through a guided interview and questionnaire survey during the measurement. The measured wind velocity ratio is highest in the long-linear high-rise building layout, and is the lowest in the mid-rise linear building layout. Eight-seven per cent of respondents felt fairly comfortable living in the long-linear high-rise building layout, only 7% less than the mid-rise building layout. ...........

Guo, W., Meng, X., Zhang, Y., Wang, N.

57199262830;57194581397;57194584688;57194582523;

Spatial development model of sustainable tourism town based on smart city

(2017) Agro Food Industry Hi-Tech, 28 (1), pp. 853-857.

https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85020975732&partnerID=40&md5=01cbd36b08a8a0f2ca20ec0ff56d3c2e

AFFILIATIONS: School of Economics and Management, Yanshan University, Institute of Modern Tourism Industry and Organization Development, Yanshan University, Qinhuangdao, Hebei, China;

School of Economics and Management, Yanshan University, Qinhuangdao, Hebei, China

ABSTRACT: With the strong support of the rapid development of Internet. "Intelligent" and "Wisdom" has become an important direction for the development of various industries. Smart city integrates the policy design and practice innovation in the three areas of urbanization, industrialization and information technology, which is the focus of China's new round of economic development. Therefore, the spatial development model of sustainable tourism town based on smart city was studied in this paper. On the basis of brief introduction of relevant theories and concepts, the sustainable development model is established based on practical demonstration to discuss the future spatial development and planning model of tourism towns. ..................

**********

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

Reviewer #3: Yes: Dr. Grigorios L. Kyriakopoulos

**********

[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.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-22-18649-review_comments.docx

PONE-D-22-18649R1Study on the Sustainable Renewal Strategy of Ancient Towns with Canals on the Basis of the Topological Structure Analysis of Streets and Lanes: A Case Study of the Xixing Ancient TownPLOS 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 Dec 04 2022 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: https://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,

Dragan Pamucar

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

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: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: 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: Partly

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: N/A

**********

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 #3: 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 #3: 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: This paper discusses the spatial syntax to analyze the topological structure of roads and alleys in the ancient city of Xixing in the Zhedong canal as a case object. I think this topic is interesting regard to most situations in urban development. But this paper should be improved in order to publishing requirement in the international journal. Specific comments are noted below:

1. Authors(s) already provided the abstract’s content (the purpose/background, method used, results). However, please provide clear methods on the studies that have been conducted. Please make it short and sharp. In addition, I recommend writing a clear statement about methodology. It is not necessary to write the steps of the method, but briefly explain the method used, analysis, and tools used. Write the keywords in alphabetical order.

2. In the initial paragraph in the introduction the problem is less clear from the author's point of view. It should refer after summarizing some of the results from the existing references. Some sentences that need to be corrected such as "...As a result, how to conduct innovative research on the space protection and vitality renewal of ancient towns with canals in the new historical period has become an important topic for the continuity and long-term development of those ancient towns in the modern era…” Further explanation is needed in this statement. The introduction is something that explains the contents of the entire manuscript. I suggest entering the contribution section in the introduction (contribution is part of introduction). Make the sentences flow and adjust the sentence by referring to the reference described in the initial paragraph in the introduction.

3. Did you mean Yoshinobu Ashihara? (line 77).

4. Literature review is a section that explains the basis of the study conducted. It is necessary to explain which parts of the reference are used in the methodology and then used to carry out the analysis. How the author(s) explains this into the methodology is important. It is highly recommended to summarize each part of the literature review by relating it to the research topic being carried out. State at the end of each paragraph each literature review (lines 90, 104, and 127).

5. Paper for international journals will be read by readers who do not understand the location, so give information in the form of maps of Xixing, China, and which parts of China are studied.

6. Explain with a statement at the end of the discussion section that explains the analysis of the discussion that has been described. Therefore, it is necessary to distinguish which part of the results and which part of the discussion. Make it in its own part.

7. Conclusion is the answer to the question asked in the introduction. So, the conclusion in this article should answer what is being questioned. Need to do a sharper explanation is actually what problems to be answered. In my opinion, there is no conclusion and it is too long for conclusion section, but it is also necessary to answer that should be at the end of the introduction. Please avoid writing conclusions in points, make in paragraph sentences. Two to three paragraphs for the conclusion section are sufficient.

8. Each figure requires a caption and explanation in the image, for example adding text to the captured image calculation from DepthMap.

9. In general, systematics in writing of scientific articles is Introduction, Literature review, Research Methods, Results and Discussion, and Conclusions. Systematics should be used in writing articles in this paper need to be improved.

This paper actually is an interesting topic to be raised; the author(s) tries to contribute the study regarding spatial syntax in the form of integration, choice, synergy, and clarity of streets and alleys, in order to obtain an update strategy and conclusions about the spatial vitality of a city. But this paper requires adjustment to the structure of a journal; it is necessary to follow the structure of the existing journal writing in general, so that the flow of writing becomes easy to understand.

Reviewer #3: At this revised manuscript authors developed a thorough and substantial reorganization of their initial manuscript, having the review comments addressed in a meticulous manner. The narrative flow is smooth, the methodology analysis is sound, and the research outcomes are insightful. In this respect the revised manuscript sustains novel features of regional and wider socio-cultural impact on the Chinese context, thus, it can be accepted for publication at the PLOS One journal as is.

**********

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 #3: Yes: Dr. Grigorios L. Kyriakopoulos

**********

[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.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-22-18649R1-review_comments.docx

PONE-D-22-18649R2Study on the Sustainable Renewal Strategy of Ancient Towns with Canals on the Basis of the Topological Structure Analysis of Streets and Lanes: A Case Study of the Xixing Ancient TownPLOS 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 Dec 30 2022 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: https://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,

Dragan Pamucar

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

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: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

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 #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: N/A

**********

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 #3: 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 #3: 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: This paper discusses the spatial syntax to analyze the topological structure of roads and alleys in the ancient city of Xixing in the Zhedong canal as a case object. I think this topic is interesting regard to most situations in urban development. The author has revised most of what has been suggested. But there are minor revisions that must be corrected.

In this version of the article, the conclusion section is omitted. The author must write a conclusion, as stated in the previous revised version "Conclusion and Expectations", “…Based on the theory and method of spatial syntax, this paper studied the spatial and topological configuration…” In this version it is even removed. Stick to this conclusion statement. Please rewrite the section as in the previous version.

Reviewer #3: The following minor corrections can be addressed prior to an “acceptance” decision.

�The manuscript title has to be shortened since it currently contains 31 words.

�There are extensive narrative points that are not cited, thus, checking and cross-citing them it is needed.

�It is not clear and straightforward what are the borders: start-end of the main sections: 1. Introduction, 2. Literature Review, 3. Methodology, 4. Results, 5. Discussion, 6. Conclusions and Future Research. Therefore, it is highly recommended:

-if main headings are missing to be added in the order above, while all main headings to be numbered as 1, 2, 3, …….., and their subheadings to be numbered as 2.2, 2.1, ……, 3.1, 3.2, ……., where missing and where matching to the narrative flow/text content.

-titles such as that of:

“Local integration degree of the Xixing Ancient Town”

“The choice of the Xixing Ancient Town”

“Construction of the Adaptive Mode of the Integration of Living Environment and Business Space”

To be shortened and placed as subheadings within the aforesaid main sections’ structure: 1,…., 6, where matching to the revised narrative flow.

�The concluding remarks (to be presented in a separated 6. Conclusions and Future Research section) they have to oriented towards the constraints, the limitations, and the future research orientations and propositions of generalized truth, beyond that of Xixing ancient town, of similar research, cultural and spatial contexts in China or worldwide, to be drawn. To this end 3-4 extra sentences can be added at this ending section 6.

�Special care and provision should be taken that all source citations from which the Figures and Tables have been developed/adapted/recalled from, to be explicitly noted in their legends/caption (where missing).

**********

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 #3: Yes: Dr. Grigorios L. Kyriakopoulos

**********

[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.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-22-18649_R2-review_comments.docx

PONE-D-22-18649R3Study on the Sustainability of Ancient Canal Towns on the Basis of the Topological Structure Analysis of Streets and Lanes: A Case Study of the Xixing Ancient TownPLOS 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 Jan 15 2023 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: https://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,

Dragan Pamucar

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

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: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: 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 #3: (No Response)

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

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 #3: (No Response)

**********

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 #3: (No Response)

**********

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: This paper discusses the spatial syntax to analyze the topological structure of roads and alleys in the ancient city of Xixing in the Zhedong canal as a case object. I think this topic is interesting regard to most situations in urban development. The author has revised most of what has been suggested. But there are minor revisions that must be corrected.

In this version of the article, the conclusion section is omitted. The author must write a conclusion, as stated in the previous revised version "Conclusion and Expectations", “…Based on the theory and method of spatial syntax, this paper studied the spatial and topological configuration…” In this version it is even removed. Stick to this conclusion statement. Please rewrite the section as in the previous version.

Reviewer #3: At this revised manuscript authors improved their analysis and findings into a satisfactory and meaningful manner. In this respect the revised manuscript sustains novel features and it can be accepted for publication at the PLOS ONE journal as is.

**********

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 #3: Yes: Dr. Grigorios L. Kyriakopoulos

**********

[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.

Study on the Sustainability of Ancient Canal Towns on the Basis of the Topological Structure Analysis of Streets and Lanes: A Case Study of the Xixing Ancient Town

PONE-D-22-18649R4

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,

Dragan Pamucar

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

**********

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

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: 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

**********

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

**********

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: This paper discusses the spatial syntax to analyze the topological structure of roads and alleys in the ancient city of Xixing in the Zhedong canal as a case object. I think this topic is interesting regard to most situations in urban development. Author(s) have made improvements according to suggestions. With this version, I believe it can be published in this journal.

**********

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

**********