Dear Dr. %:LAST_NAME%,

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 Oct 09 2025 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.

• 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,

Yile Chen, Ph.D. in Architecture

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. Thank you for stating the following in your Competing Interests section: [No]

Please complete your Competing Interests on the online submission form to state any Competing Interests. If you have no competing interests, please state ""The authors have declared that no competing interests exist."", as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now

 This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: [All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.]

Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition).

For example, authors should submit the following data:

- The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;

- The values used to build graphs;

- The points extracted from images for analysis.

Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study.

If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories.

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. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access.

4. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. 

[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?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Partly

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: N/A

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: 1.While the conceptual pathway is sound, the review relies heavily on synthesizing prior findings without clearly proposing or testing a new theory. The model would benefit from a visual diagram or conceptual map.

2.Despite following PRISMA guidelines and employing the CCAT tool, the scope of analysis is narrow. Only 10 studies are included over a 9-year span. The justification for this small sample should be more robust (based on my knowledge.)

3.The synthesis could benefit from clearer distinction between quantitative behavioral data (e.g., GPS paths, density) and subjective perceptual data. Future reviews could adopt mixed-method meta-analysis frameworks.

4.Some terms like 'isovist' or 'visual integration' should be briefly defined when first used.

5.Ensure figures referenced (e.g., PRISMA diagram, Fig. 3) are embedded correctly in final layout.

6.Writing is mostly clear but would benefit from further proofreading for redundancy and flow.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript examines a pertinent and timely subject with potential significance for both scholarly inquiry and practical implementation. The study design seems methodologically robust, and the data provided corroborate the overarching conclusions. The statistical analyses utilise suitable methods and seem to have been conducted with sufficient rigour, enhancing the reliability of the findings.

The manuscript is predominantly well-composed, with arguments articulated in a coherent and logical fashion; however, minor grammatical revisions and occasional rephrasing could enhance its flow and readability. Certain terms and definitions require more precise clarification to enhance accessibility for readers from varied backgrounds.

Although the methodology is valid, the authors should offer more explicit justification for specific decisions regarding data handling, analysis, or variable selection to enhance the robustness of their approach. It would be advantageous to succinctly emphasise the originality and prospective impact of this research in the introduction, clearly articulating how it enhances current understanding.

The manuscript possesses merit and, with minor enhancements in clarity and language refinement, can significantly contribute to the literature.

Reviewer #3: This is an interesting article that accumulates recent developments in the use of spatial configuration metrics to determine patterns in tourist behaviour in gardens. The authors appear to have done a relatively comprehensive collection, final selection and description of research studies relying on existing models and standard processes. The manuscript is readable and intelligible though slightly repetitive.

Where the article falters is in going beyond simple enumeration of the methods used in each study particularly as that relates to spatial configuration. While this is indeed an emerging domain with various published papers, the strategy for the review chosen here seems lacking. The authors have chosen to do a relatively shallow reading of the methodology of each article, focusing only on metrics, whereas research that is typically considered part of the space syntax domain has produced a multitude of combinations of spatial representations, algorithms, metrics and other methodological considerations such as radius (the spatial limit to the reach of the various algorithms). This approach would have worked fine if the sample was larger, but there are only 10 studies selected and all use rather different methods of getting to the result, not always equivalent.

Because the sample is small, I would have expected a much deeper explanation of the spatial configuration methodologies. For example, a cursory reading of the studies suggests that they use different representations of space, but these are not mentioned in the manuscript. They do not appear as part of the methodology review or identified per-study. Some studies seem to use Visibility Graph Analysis (VGA) (referenced as 13, 15, 30 and 31), some Segment maps (28, 30, 32, 33) some Isovists (27, 31) and some Convex maps (20, 29). This can be problematic in some cases because metrics such as "Integration" and "Connectivity" produce different values for different representations at the same location (especially VGA and Segment maps) making comparison to human behaviour and perception difficult. Given the small sample I would have also at least expected the authors to further provide examples of the use of these methods in other scales of the built environment. Gardens are at the "small urban area" scale, meaning that the authors could have examined papers from both smaller scales (buildings such as offices, schools and hospitals, usually employing VGA) and larger scales (large urban areas and cities typically employing segment analysis).

Instead, the authors demonstrate that the studies themselves have only had surface-level examination. This is evident from examples such as:

1. attributing analysis to Gomaa et al. (32) using "Local integration" whereas the paper in question only mentions the metric in passing in the introduction,

2. referring to "depth" as a metric, which is unusable on its own and requires a location descriptor (as in Mohamed et al. (2024)[29] actually referring to it as "Step depth from the main entrance")

3. having both "connectivity" (Wu et al. (2025) [30]) and "isovist area" (Yu et al. (2016) [31]) as different metrics where they are practically the same because the two studies use VGA,

4. mentioning "extended metrics" in Tables 6 and 7, attributing it to different papers but never explaining what those metrics are

5. completely ignoring other important metrics such as control found in Mohamed et al. (2024)[29] and choice found in Wu et al (2025) [30].

This shallow approach has also prevented the authors from drawing larger conclusions in their discussion such as how and, more importantly, why some metrics affect tourist behaviour. For example the authors do identify that Integration is an important metric but do not go further to try to identify why it might correlate with tourist path selection. Is it perhaps a strategy of people who don't know a space (tourists) to traverse that space on what looks to them as the most obvious path? Is it that this is the result of exploratory behaviour as in other cases (say galleries)? The authors instead avoid the larger critical reflections (which would be fitting for a such a review) and choose to recite the various results from the studies highlighting the limitations (which seem to also come from the studies).

Other notes:

The referencing is inconsistent to the point where it creates confusion:

1. One of the main studies "Zhang et al. (2020)" referenced as 15 has a broken DOI and either the wrong title or the wrong authors. The title matches authors Zhang T., Lian Z., and Xu Y and the DOI https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2020.1730775.

2. It is unclear what "extended metrics" are, they are attributed to either Lee, K. (2021) in Table 6 or Huang and Lee (2023) in Table 7

Reviewer #4: PLOS ONE, Manuscript Number: PONE-D-25-34363

Title: The Influence of Garden Spatial Configuration on Tourist Behavior: A Systematic

Review Based on Space Syntax

This article presents a systematic scoping review of space syntax research on the influence of garden spatial configurations on tourist behavior. Employing the PRISMA framework, the review identifies ten relevant studies from four major databases: Web of Science, Scopus, JSTOR, and ScienceDirect. The review first highlights research that utilized spatial-perceptual methods in garden analytics from 2016 to 2025. It then identifies key syntactic metrics that significantly contribute to understanding garden spatial configurations and explaining users’ navigational behavior. Furthermore, the review explores the perceptual experiences associated with garden spaces, emphasizing the need for a more integrated analytical framework - one that incorporates emotional-perceptual simulations and cultural symbolism, both of which indirectly influence tourist behavior. The study concludes by addressing existing research gaps and suggesting directions for future investigation.

The paper presents an interesting focus, and it has the potential to be publishable if significantly revised. However, it currently suffers from several issues that undermine its quality and usefulness to the reader. I encourage the authors to undertake a major revision to address these concerns, as the paper contains valuable insights that could be of interest to readers.

Reviewer comments

First,

The biggest issue with the paper is the unclarity of its questions. The authors fail to clearly highlight the specific research questions they themselves aim to sequentially address in this study – apart from the questions that were raised by the articles of the literature review. All of which confuses the reader.

As the authors emphasized that their main research interest was 'Examining the relationship between garden spaces and touristic behavior,' they posed two questions. While RQ1 is not clear in its academic intent, and could therefore be adjusted, RQ2 is more relevant but would benefit from being developed into several operational sub-questions (among which the modified/altered RQ1 could be incorporated). This lack of clarity in the formulation of the research questions directly affects the overall rigor of the study. In its current form, the paper does not adequately address the research operational questions, leaving the reader with a conclusion that offers little specificity regarding results relevant to the central focus. The final sections continue to reference existing literature rather than engaging with the study’s own findings. A stronger approach would have been to adopt a singular overarching focus (examining the relationship between garden spaces and touristic behavior), develop several operational sub-questions, rigorously investigate each of them, and then provide a conclusive answer supported by empirical evidence/finding. Although the authors have made considerable effort and generated the findings needed, the knowledge that they developed is not presented in a structured or clear way; important findings are thrown as familiar statements, and the headings and the sub-headings of the sections do not always hint to the link between the question inquired and the content presented. Based on a review of the current content of their study, the authors should formulate three to four operational questions and restructure the study to present clear, definitive answers.

In general, the authors need to revise the text, develop a multi-layered discussion, and clearly highlight their contributions at three levels: (1) data collection and PRISMA findings, (2) the application of space syntax metrics and how these metrics are used and analyzed to reveal specific configurational–behavioral experiences - in addition to the other supporting theories if any, and (3) the interpretations derived from the multi-layered study and the cumulative insights of the ten reviewed papers.

Second

The methodology outlining how the collected data is investigated, interpreted, and how each layer of the analysis and research questions is addressed needs to be presented more clearly, both in text and through a flow chart. While the authors included visual graphs and tables related to the literature review and its summary. However, in the sections /levels where their own input is most important and potentially influential, this impact is minimized. Summaries concluded section-paragraphs, interpretations, and visualizations should be used more effectively to emphasize their contribution and to clearly demonstrate the methodology applied in screening and analyzing (the content of) the selected papers, which is critical. A chart detailing this methodology is expected to be incorporated prior to the presentation of the results.

Furthermore, the Methods section unnecessarily expands on subsections 2.2 (Criteria) and 2.4 (Quality Assessment), which distracts the flow of the main core topic. It could be more effectively reduced and summarized in a simple paragraph and a table.

It should also be clarified that, while many studies employ similar large databases, the relatively small number of papers reviewed in this specific topic limits the extent to which statistical findings alone can be relied upon. This makes a deeper level of analysis and interpretation in this study particularly important.

Third

While Table 4. - which appears in section 3.1., provides a comprehensive summary and introduces several socio-perceptual and phenomenological tools/theories, it would be useful to include a paragraph(s) briefly describing the other tools (beyond space syntax) that are mentioned. In other words, authors need to present a brief explanation to the “theories” that appear in the column of “theory” Table 4., and to clarify how these relate, or not relate, to Space Syntax, and consequently the title of this study. (Examples TG, CL, NRT, IL, TB,….. and why they are included).

In addition, the meaning of 'Visitor involvement level' in Table 4 is unclear; its relevance to the investigation should be clarified; otherwise, it could be omitted.

Fourth,

Table 6. in Section 3.3 could be expanded by adding images of the layouts of the 10 cases studied with certain space syntax and visibility maps (with clear references). The visuals of the space syntax metrics as reflected in graphs usually help understanding the findings and help in understanding the context.

Fifth,

To improve the readability of Table 7 which appears in Section 3.4, it would be helpful to add a column entitled “Space Syntax Metrics” to clarify the metrics used in each of the studies listed. Alternatively, Tables 6 and 7 could be combined into a single table.

Sixth,

Section 3.5 is an important part of the paper as it highlights the distinction between the impact of garden spatial configuration and perceptual values such as aesthetic preferences, cultural cognition, and sense of safety. The authors should emphasize this section more clearly to underline their contribution. Including a table that summarizes these issues would also strengthen the presentation.

Seventh,

The presentation of the text in Section 4.1 gives the impression of abundance and unnecessary repetition. The authors should clarify the distinctions between the metrics, their analytical value, and the interpretive insights that emerge when different space syntax indicators are combined. Since the power of integrating tools is central to this section and represents the authors’ key contribution, it should not be downplayed by the inclusion of repeated content. Reference to the 10 studied papers could help (Optional).

Eighth,

The authors are advised to include a table at the end of Section 4.2, followed by an interpretive paragraph.

Ninth,

Section 4.4 would benefit from a concluding paragraph that summarizes the findings and highlights the authors’ interpretations, thereby underscoring their own voice and contribution.

Tenth,

The conclusions should directly address the research questions and provide clear answers at both the local and global levels.

Other issues:

One,

The following paper that you referred to in your study is an excellent example, particularly in how it demonstrates the alignment between paragraphs and figures (see, for instance, Figures 3 and 4): Lee, J.H.; Ostwald, M.J.; Zhou, L. (2023). Socio-Spatial Experience in Space Syntax Research: A PRISMA-Compliant Review. Buildings, 13(3), 644. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13030644

Two,

A note to look at:

At the 4th International Space Syntax Symposium in 2003, M. Abrioux presented an article entitled 'Body, eye and imagination: A meditation on the dynamics of space in French and English gardening.' The paper applied space syntax to garden analysis, emphasizing the perceptual and imaginative dimensions of spatial experience in French and English garden design. Although not a comprehensive study of gardens, it represents a key contribution in that year by extending space syntax concepts into the context of landscape architecture and highlighting how garden design can shape visitors’ perception and experience of space. The research likely focused on the subtle, qualitative aspects of spatial design rather than just quantitative metrics, which are more common in other space syntax applications. It might help to add this paper to your references for its direct relevance to the chronological literature review. Following are the details of the reference.

Abrioux, M. (2003). Body, eye and imagination: A meditation on the dynamics of space in French and English gardening. Paper presented at the 4th International Space Syntax Symposium, London.

**********

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: Yes:  Adib Amany

Reviewer #2: Yes:  SAYON PRAMANIK

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: Yes:  Shatha Malhis

**********

[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.

Dear Dr. Li,

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 14 2025 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.

• 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 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,

Yile Chen, Ph.D. in Architecture

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. 

2. 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.

Additional Editor Comments:

Currently, half of the reviewers have accepted the manuscript, but there are still some minor issues, such as formulas, that need to be corrected and verified. We hope the authors can revise these as soon as possible.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Partly

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: N/A

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1:  (No Response)

Reviewer #2:  This manuscript, "The Influence of Garden Spatial Configuration on Tourist Behaviour: A Systematic Review Based on Space Syntax," conducts a detailed review to investigate a pertinent and emerging subject that connects perception, spatial configuration, and tourist behaviour. The revision demonstrates a significant enhancement in the theoretical framing, clarity, and structure.

Advantages:

The study now adheres to PRISMA 2020 with rigour, utilising transparent inclusion criteria and quality appraisals (CCATs). The methodology and research questions are explicitly stated. The new Structure, Perception and Behaviour (SPB) framework and cross-scale comparison significantly improve the conceptual depth. Key Space Syntax metrics are defined, and tables and figures have been revised to enhance consistency and readability.

Suggestions for Minor Enhancement:

Clarify whether the SPB framework is a synthesis from the literature or a proposed theoretical model. Provide a concise explanation of the correlation between behavioural outcomes (e.g., cognitive ease, legibility) and metrics such as integration and choice. Include a brief commentary on the cultural distinctions between Western and Eastern garden typologies. The final round of English language and formatting refinement will be conducted.

Overall:

The manuscript is conceptually valuable and methodologically robust. It will make a substantial contribution to the literature on tourist behaviour and spatial configuration with some minor theoretical clarification and language polishing.

Reviewer #3:  Thank you for taking the time to respond and address the issues in the paper. Here are some more comments:

1. In response to Reviewer #3, 5. Comment Response: I mentioned Connectivity and Isovist Area as the same exactly _because both studies use VGA_ in which case they are the indeed practically the same. The original Hillier Connectivity refers to axial connections (essentially the number of junctions of a street), but in VGA Connectivity (or Visual Connectivity if you'd rather make this clearer) refers to the number of cells that are visible from a cell. This is calculated by creating a 360-degree isovist from each cell and looking at the number of cells that fall within the isovist polygon. The larger the area of the isovist polygon (what Isovist Area measures), the more the cells; and the smaller the cells, the more Visual Connectivity will approach Isovist Area. There is a finer point about intervisibility, but the reality of the VGA grid cell construct is that there are no non-reciprocal relationships (i.e. every cell that cell A can "see" can also "see" A). This is exactly because we use 360-degree isovists and because there are no studies (as far as I'm aware) that actually look at VGA with one-way visibility materials (though even in that case the practical - what the code outputs - result will once again be the same). If you'd like to dig deeper into the details of VGA metric calculation look at Koutsolampros (2021) section 4.3.1 on page 124, or Koutsolampros et al. (2019).

2. In section 3.1 it is not immediately clear that you mean that there are identically named metrics across representations. I would rephrase otherwise it seems that Integration and Connectivity are somehow identically named between them.

3. While table 4 is certainly welcome it seems that there has not been enough attention to detail:

3.a. For Huang & Lee (2023), "Kernel density estimation" and "heatmap" are not spatial representations.

3.b. For Chen & Yang (2025), what are "Isovist fields"? These are not explained anywhere.

3.c. For Mohammadi & Ujang (2021), what are experiential maps? Not explained anywhere. Are they spatial representations? How?

3.d. For Yu et al. (2021), it seems the authors use convex, not axial, even if they mention axial in some places.

3.e. For Zhang et al. (2019), you say "VGA + Depthmap", but Depthmap is just the tool for (among other things) carry out VGA.

3.f. For Chen et al. (2025), you say "Isovist polygons & Parameters", why not just "Isovists", why is this different to "Isovist fields" above, and what are "Parameters" (certainly not a representation).

4. In section 3.3 "visual" indicators are also "topological" due to the way that the grid is constructed (see comment 1 and related references). Either actually state the difference in measurement (topological/visual, metric, angular), or just actually specify that these refer to different representations (segment, convex, grid/VGA).

5. In 3.3.1 you are describing Topological/Visual or "Step" depth (number of steps to get somewhere). There's also metric depth and angular depth. Please specify the name (and ideally everywhere else).

6. In 3.3 generally; I don't understand why the grouping of metrics in this way (and it's not explained). Why "Control value and Choice"? Why does Control have "value" next to it and Choice does not? Why are Connectivity and Intelligibility in the same section? Please revise and group the metrics in a more meaningful way.

7. In 3.3.3, formula (6) doesn't mean anything. Intelligibility comes from using a specific statistical process - please explain it and specify the formula.

8. In 3.3.4, it is a strange statement that "visual integration" is good for lingering and photography given that areas with high integration tend to be intermediate central pathways (correctly assumed to be generating social interaction). If this is from the authors then specify the exact page otherwise explain.

9. In 3.3.4 (again), the "Common forms" mentioned are of combinations, not of metrics, making this harder to understand. What kind of metrics come out of the combinations with GPS trajectories? Also, questionnaire results are usually output or "dependent" metrics, so I wouldn't include them as metrics that may influence human behaviour or perception.

10. I noticed in 4.1 that there is a full stop after the names of authors even if they are just one or two (and not "et al."), for example with "In addition, Lee.[34] elucidated the relationship". Please correct throughout.

11. In section 6 "Different spatial representations" should have a space prior to the previous full stop.

Reviewer #4:  PLOS ONE, Manuscript Number: PONE-D-25-34363R1

Title: The Influence of Garden Spatial Configuration on Tourist Behavior: A Systematic

Review Based on Space Syntax

As a reviewer assessing the revised manuscript (Number: PONE-D-25-34363R1), I am satisfied with the revisions made by the authors. They have addressed all of my previous comments and suggestions comprehensively, which has strengthened the manuscript. The manuscript is now in substantially better shape, and I have no further comments at this stage.

**********

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: Yes:  Adib Amany

Reviewer #2: Yes:  SAYON PRAMANIK

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: Yes:  Shatha Malhis

**********

[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.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures 

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation. 

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

The Influence of Garden Spatial Configuration on Tourist Behavior: A Systematic Review Based on Space Syntax

PONE-D-25-34363R2

Dear Dr. Li,

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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager®  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support .

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,

Yile Chen, Ph.D. in Architecture

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: