Influence of Gender Composition in Pedestrian Single-File Experiments
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
A set of single-file experiments with homogeneous and heterogeneous group compositions were applied by the authors to investigate the potential impacts of gender. Considering the overall quality of the manuscript, the referee prefers to recommend a major revision.
The detailed comments can be found as follows.
1. It is significant to indicate the potential value of the single-file experiments and the gender composition investigation in the manuscript.
2. For fig.2 and fig.3, it is hard to find out the critical differences among the Female, Male, Gender alternating and Gender random order experiments. In my view, almost no obvious conclusions are found out from the two figures.
3. Also, the author should describe why the six uneven zones in Table.2 are picked as the examples for analysis.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Report on the paper
Influence of Gender Composition in Pedestrian Single-File Experiments
by S. Paetzke, M. Boltes, and A. Syfried
The authors report several analyses from data obtained in a series of single-file experiments carried out in Düsseldorf, Germany, in 2021. The aim of those experiments was to test three hypotheses concerning the influence of gender on the corresponding speed-density diagram. The tested hypotheses were: a) the speed-density relation depends on the gender composition of the group, b) at high density the person-to-person distance depends on the gender, and c) a linear model proposed previously proposed by the authors improves by including more human factors. According to their analyses, the data support hypothesis a), nevertheless, the dependence on gender is less noticeable and only holds only in a small range of densities. In contrast, experiments reported by a Palestinian group suggest that a cultural factor may enhance the gender influence. In regard to hypothesis b), the analysis point towards its refusal. Finally, hypotheses c) seem to be supported by the data, but the improvement of the model is not as relevant as the authors expected.
The presentation of the work is clear and well-organized. The work is part of a broader research project by the authors and clearly related to similar works by other groups. It seems to me that the contribution of the present work is significant and represents progress in the research project. I, therefore, recommend the paper for publication in Applied Sciences after the correction of some minor mistakes. In what follows I indicate some of them, and I give some suggestions I think could improve the presentation.
In line 17 there is a misplaced dot after reference [6-10].
In the caption of Figure 3, "fundamental diagram" appears twice.
In line 201, the phrase "the new model in 6 is applied" should be erased.
In line 223, as I understand, several means are compared (corresponding to several groups in the german and Palestinian experiments) and not only two means. If so, the phrase should be: the means are significantly equal...
In line 226, the phrase does not reflect what is represented in Table 2. According to the table, the means which coincide are those for the homogeneous groups in the german experiment and the gender-alternating group in Palestine. Also, these means are not higher than the ones for the homogeneous groups in Palestine.
In line 319, the first appearance of "group" in "The group gender random order group.." should be erased.
In line 358, the ending "is considered", should be erased. Indeed, I suggest to paraphrased the whole phrase.
I suggest summarizing the description of the experiments in a table containing the densities (or better the number of participants), group compositions, and the number of runs for each group composition and density chosen. This information could replace or complement the last part of the second paragraph of subsection 2.1.
I suggest as well to rewrite the conclusions, repeating the hypotheses and at each time contrasting with the outcome of the analyses. In particular, it seems to me that the conclusion concerning the third hypothesis is not clearly stated. It is not clear to me if the previously proposed model has to be improved by including other human factors or not.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
In this manuscript, the authors analyzed the impact of gender in pedestrian single-file experiments. The paper is well-written. However, many factors can be considered to analyze the distance between pedestrians and their velocity, such as the sidewalk quality, temperature, etc. I suggest citing the following papers.
a) Kim, Y.-J.; Lee, C.; Kim, J.-H. Sidewalk Landscape Structure and Thermal Conditions for Child and Adult Pedestrians. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 148. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ijerph15010148
b) Hosseini, M., Araujo, I. B., Yazdanpanah, H., Tokuda, E. K., Miranda, F., Silva, C. T., & Cesar Jr, R. M. (2021). Sidewalk measurements from satellite images: Preliminary findings. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.06120.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I have no further suggestions.
