Sustainable Space Transformation Design Strategies for Post-Landfill Closure
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Sustainability- 2908518 Sustainable Space Transformation Design Strategies for Post-Land fill Closure
This article is a case study for conceptual space transformation design for the post-closure of the Zhangjiawan landfill site is Xining City, Qinghai Province, Northwest China. The authors propose “practical approaches for space functionality conversion, community network building and heritage conservation” but are missing critical details for doing what is proposed. Also, although conceptual design is presented, we are missing specific methods, and it needs to be more closely linked to sustainable outcomes.
Introduction- Related Theoretical Foundations and Case Analysis
Although the authors mention John Simons and Alan Berger as early regenerative design scholars – they did not mention John Tillman Lyle who was one of the most influential scholars in this arena. See Lyle J. T. 1994. Regenerative Design for Sustainable Development. John Wiley and Sons.
Also see Melly P. and Cathart T. 2002. Regenerative Design Techniques: Practical Applications in Landscape Design. John Wiley and Sons.
Lines 148-155 What specific design principles are to be incorporated in the Zhangjiawan municipal Landfill closure and redesign other than the general concepts from these case studies?
We are missing a section on methods. What were the specific methods used for data acquisition and design programming?
3. Sustainable Transformation Design for Zhangjiawan Municipal Landfill
3.1 Background -lines 157-167, lines 181-184 plus figures 7 and 8. What specific physical site characteristics are there, e.g., topography, drainage, surface water, groundwater, etc. that would affect post closure redesign? How was the landfill operated? Open dump and cover or specific cells and sealed? This will have an effect on post closure design and remediation.
3.2 Sustainable Urban Space Design - lines 227-230. What are the characteristics of the surrounding mountainous ecosystem that the design will “seamlessly” fit into?
3.2.2. Building Community Networks - lines 252-257. It is not enough to say that there should be community networks constructed. How will this be done? What is the process of collecting community input to the proposed design? How are local community and tourist needs met?
3.2.3 Theme plaza reflecting cultural heritage continuity - lines 280-303. How is the local cultural heritage data collected and programmed into the conceptual design? What methods were used to do this?
4. Conclusion- is only a repetition of what was covered before. What is the connection of the proposed conceptual design to sustainability? How will this be assessed? What was learned that was new knowledge from this conceptual design exercise? What are the limitations of this design approach? Can this same approach be used for other post closure landfill planning and design situations.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
English Language usage is fine.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Focusing on transforming and reusing closed landfill sites, this article explores strategies for promoting sustainable development in urban public spaces, offering guidance on landfill reuse in the study area. However, the article lacks coherence, with scattered points and shallow analysis, resembling a planning and design report rather than a research paper. Integration of regeneration theory and design text into an academic paper is unsuccessful.
1. If the results of "the post-closure design of the Zhangjiawan Municipal Landfill" are used as an argument, it does not succeed in supporting some kind of academic construction of "landscape regeneration and spirit of place theoretical research".
2. If the "landscape regeneration and spirit of place theory" is taken as the planning idea or theoretical guidance, there is no innovation, advancement, creativity, breakthrough or reasonableness in the content of "the post-closure design of the Zhangjiawan Municipal Landfill".
Overall, the two appear to be separate and far-fetched, with no logical main line of argument, and too much space filled with loose and weakly related phrases.
To enhance its suitability for submission to SCI journals, a major restructuring is recommended, focusing on condensing scientific issues with project practice and reorganizing the paper around these scientific issues.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The English should be improved since there are some extremely long sentences and improper descriptions.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The article "Sustainable Space Transformation Design Strategies for Post-Landfill Closure" addresses the complex challenges of repurposing closed landfill sites into sustainable urban public spaces. While the study presents intriguing insights and practical design approaches, several notable deficiencies must be addressed in its scholarly rigor and applicability.
One glaring issue is the need for more introduction, which needs to adequately contextualize the research problem and articulate the significance of the study within the broader discourse on sustainable urban development. A well-defined introduction is essential for orienting readers and establishing the research's relevance and potential contributions to the field. The theoretical framework needs to be revised.
Furthermore, the article overlooks crucial considerations regarding soil contamination issues associated with closed landfill sites. The absence of soil and water bioremediation strategies represents a significant gap in the research, as addressing environmental contamination is paramount to ensuring the long-term viability and safety of repurposed spaces.
Additionally, the article needs to explore the perspectives of local inhabitants regarding the perception and utilization of transformed landfill sites. Understanding community needs, preferences, and concerns is essential for fostering inclusive and culturally sensitive design solutions that resonate with diverse stakeholders.
The low quality of graphics further detracts from the article's effectiveness in communicating key concepts and design strategies. Enhancing the clarity and resolution of visuals would improve reader comprehension and facilitate the dissemination of research findings.
Moreover, the study's theoretical framework needs to be more adequately developed, with limited integration and synthesis of relevant theoretical perspectives. A more robust theoretical foundation would enhance the scholarly rigor of the research and provide deeper insights into the conceptual underpinnings guiding sustainable space transformation strategies.
Furthermore, the article needs a transparent research methodology, making it challenging to discern the approach used for data collection, analysis, and interpretation. A well-defined research methodology is essential for establishing the credibility and replicability of study findings.
The construction of the article also hinders clarity and coherence, making it difficult to distinguish between background material and research results. Structuring the research would enhance readability and facilitate comprehension of key findings and implications.
Ultimately, while the article offers insights into space transformation, its shortcomings in theoretical framing, research methodology, and stakeholder engagement undermine its scholarly impact and practical relevance. It lacs also includes the issue of the sustainability part of the transformation. Addressing these deficiencies through enhanced theoretical grounding, methodological transparency, and community-centered design approaches is imperative for advancing the field of sustainable urban development and effectively addressing the multifaceted challenges of post-landfill closure redevelopment.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
There are several language issues and problems with the selection of wording. However, this is not the main downside of the research.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Authors have adequately responded to my review comments.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
English usage is fine- may need minor editing.
Author Response
Thank you very much.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
1. Figures 2, 3, 7, 9, and 12 have too little information and it is recommended that they be deleted in moderation or added in depth.
2. Research progress should be continually updated and refined. It is crucial to include key references that support your work. I recommend citing the following important reference in this section.
doi: 10.1109/JSTARS.2023.3312512
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The authors have made some advancements in their work; however, several shortcomings persist:
- While the theoretical framework has been expanded, its current iteration still needs to be improved. A broader inclusion of strategic methodologies and analytical planning tools is imperative to enhance its efficacy. Additionally, referencing articles detailing analogous case studies could augment its comprehensiveness.
- The exclusion of soil contamination issues appears questionable, despite its pivotal role in determining the prospective success of the endeavor. A more robust examination of this aspect is warranted.
- The quality of specific figures, such as Figures 8 and 11, could be better. Furthermore, Figures 12 and 13 contribute little scientific value to the discourse.
- The research design needs more scientific rigor. Clarifying the methodology employed is essential, as Figure 1 primarily illustrates the sustainable development process rather than the research methodology.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The authors responded comprehensively to my comments, addressing each point. They adequately addressed the need for more scientific rigor in their research design and clarified the methodology employed. They added a paragraph explaining the method and included references to relevant literature and reports, thus strengthening their study's scientific credibility. In response to the exclusion of soil contamination issues, they clarified that soil pollution factors were considered in their research in limited ways. The authors appropriately addressed concerns about the quality and scientific value of specific figures in their manuscript. Overall, their responses demonstrate a thorough understanding of the feedback provided, and they have taken significant steps to enhance the quality, comprehensiveness, and scientific rigor of their research.
In response to the exclusion of soil contamination issues, they clarified that soil pollution factors were considered in their research; however, they were strongly limited. This seems to be the weak point of the study and makes the whole research and general approach questionable.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
