Fortresses as Specific Areas of Urban Greenery Defining the Uniqueness of the Urban Cultural Landscape: Warsaw Fortress—A Case Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper shows an interesting approach to the study of the transformation of the landscape in the area concerning the city of Warsaw during the last two centuries. In particular, the central point has been focused on the transformations undergone by the Warsaw fortress from its construction to its transformation in urban landscape.

The authors use a rigorous and precise methodological approach, characterized by source analysis (very well done) and field research. The results are well explained and show how the different part of the fortress survived to the time are now reused and lived by the citizens. A good practice that could be done in all of the european cities.

In my opinion, however, there are some substantial changes to be made to the paper before being published:
1) check the images used, in many cases the writings are illegible, especially in cartographies
2) check the text formatting (italics are sometimes used in the text, even for entire paragraphs) and check the tables
3) line 356: the text is interrupted without ending

4) the tables are really interesting but I would suggest to add some images of the context and the different parts of the fortress survived to the time. 

Finally I suggest the authors to streamline the first two paragraphs of the contribution, very heavy and repetitive (perhaps the text could be condensed into a single detailed introduction). Some notions can be cut and I sugget to add some other images to support the text. When the authors begin to deal with the case study and the results, the text becomes much more fluid and interesting.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

Ad. 1 The comments on the legibility of the illustrations have been taken into account.

Ad. 2 Comments on text formatting have been taken into account.

Ad. 3 The sentence (line 356) has been corrected.

Ad. 4 Photographs of Warsaw Fortress objects have been added.

Ad. final remarks - in the Introduction the following changes were made:

- part of the text has been moved to chapter 3. Results

The rest of the text has been given the following title: Unique specificity of fortress objects in ecosystem services - cultural landscape, nature and qualified military tourism. It was decided to do so because this information is of a general nature, referring to all fortress objects in Poland as well as the information contained in this subchapter, it indicates a wide participation of elements of the cultural fortress landscape in the structure of ecosystem services.

Reviewer 2 Report

The main problem with this interesting and original research is that it does not have a clear and elaborated theoretical chapter/introduction. The current introduction gives only some hints about the context how a reader should understand the examined material. Theoretical frame would add analytical depth. I suggest at least in the introduction chapter further developing of some concepts in terms of how they are understood and used in this research. For instance, the article mentions ecosystem services or sustainable city as supportive idea. In the beginning of the article the authors argue how the aim of this article is to find balance between social, natural and cultural aspects in the fortress landscape (lines 62-66). In this view the article offers holistic view of fortress landscape in terms of human-natural relationship, however in the discussion section an emphasis goes into cultural landscape. Why? Landscape approach (also fortress landscape, as the article indicates) itself includes both natural and cultural aspects, which could be used in this study.

Therefore, the authors could describe in the Introduction chapter interconnections between military tourism, sustainable city and ecosystem services/or landscape approach. This would be very important part of the article, as it helps integrate different original research material introduced in the article. Also one could elaborate further how sustainable city is connected with tourism/recreation and heritage landscape and why especially military tourism has a potential for city sustainable development in this case. ‘Military tourism’ should be introduced already in the introducing chapter and not in the discussion part.

The paper could be improved after restructuring the article by adding subchapters into the Results section. This would help making precise difference between previous given historical information (historical background of the Warsaw Fortress) and authors original contribution (analysing the historical material from the view of greenness, etc). Another subchapter in the Results section would be current urban development/policy conditions and peoples’ perceiving. The present version of the article gives somewhat the sense like until now the fortress has not been used for tourism/recreational purpose, where fortresses ‘can be used for recreational purposes’ (line 401). I suggest here making precise difference how Warsaw fortress landscape is already in use as a recreational or tourist area and how it could contain new potentialities.

Discussion part could be contextualized further through the sustainable city frame. In the current version too much focus is given to the value of fortress in terms of cultural landscape, which is not a new knowledge. Concerning this study a new interesting material is rather connected to the re-valuation of the fortress landscape in terms of greenness and nature that binds heritage landscape. Although both abstract and introduction give a lot emphasis on urban greenery and natural systems, in the current version these ideas remain behind the idea of military tourism and cultural landscape. Therefore, besides emphasising the current value of Warsaw fortress as a potential for military tourism, I suggest here setting stronger focus, deriving from historical study that the authors offered, on the principles of shaping/focusing greenery in the process of revalorizing the fortress landscape. The discussion also might contain some analysis about conflictual discussion between changing landscape function according to modern change or preserving it as a military heritage area.

Some other observations:

Line 62. What is the ‘original methodological approach’ that will be used in the article? When a new methodology is developed, the article should also discuss the value of it in studying historical landscapes or this specific study.

Lines 103-121 are in italic. Why?

Line 162. What is ‘method of analysis’? Some descriptions are missing in terms of how the methods were used in the study.

Line 356. The sentence is incomplete.

Lines 444-454. There is no need for subheadings. One can just highlight them in the text with italic.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

Ad. 1. the term 'original methodological approach' has been deleted

Ad. 2. Text formatting has been improved

Ad. 3. Information on the SOURCE CRITICISM method is completed

Ad. 4. line 356 - the missing part of the sentence has been completed

Ad. 5. Lines 444-454 - the reviewer's suggestions were taken into account

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The comments proposed by the reviewer have been taken into account. A note on how exactly the Warsaw fortress landscape is already used as a recreational or tourist area is included in Table 4. Note on the possibility of using fortress facilities:

The Fortress of Warsaw as a ring system of fortifications can still be used as an original element of the city's recreational system by creating a coherent, multi-phase programme for individual defensive facilities linked by a network of tourist and educational routes at different levels with uniform tourist information. It should be emphasized that the system should never become a fiction due to the freedom of design (more than half of the valuable fortification sites are currently owned by private investors). Similarly, legal protection of preserving large-area monuments in the form of a cultural park should be sought while looking for a coherent development programme and a proper way of comprehensive management.

Warsaw is a specific city characterized by rapid urban development in the 20th century, which has now far exceeded the boundaries of the outer fortress belt. The preserved "green masks" of the Fortress of Toruń, allowing for the reconstruction of the fortress system, are reflected in the system of green areas of Warsaw - currently considerably fragmented, but being a remnant of the pre-war concept of a system of wedges connected by circles, the outline of which still functions in the city's spatial policy. Current ways of using earth objects indicate rather a lack of interesting ideas and a progressing process of degradation of the preserved fragments. These difficulties result both from the unclear ownership situation, the lack of historical documentation or simply the need to change the function so that it could meet the expectations of the constantly developing city while not losing its didactic value - the message regarding the region's traditions, possibilities of military art and historical events. The functions connected with recreation, i.e. the incorporation of the elements of the fortress into the system of urban recreation would certainly make this offer much more varied. It is important that the offered program allows the use of the facility for the longest possible period of time during the year while being intended for the widest possible age group. The creation of a coherent programme requires the creation of an institution managing a large cultural landscape. The first experiences of this type prove that, first of all, an institution seeking funds for its maintenance in cooperation with a group of professional advisors and local social organizations achieves the planned effects more quickly than the creation of such an institution by adding competences to city officials.

Reviewer 3 Report

Some general or remarks:

The paper adresses several issues/themes; militairy objects as a landscape, planting of these zones and militairy tourism (value and 'types' of people visiting them). The major part of the article describes the valuing by and use of fortresses by tourists and another part is about the fortresses as a militariry and green landscape. These two parts seem not so connected, the title is missing somehow the tourism part and the conclusions the relationship with the green/ planting aspects. The article would be better if the focus was on one of these themes and leave the other elements out and focus on tourism.

Why was the research only focusing on the objects and not asking questions on the experience as a landscape? daytrips and so on?

Why is Fortress in the abstract and one the first couple of pages with a capital and for the rest without a capital? Is it referring to a specific project (paid/ nonpaid, educational?)? could the authors elaborate on that?

In the part where the main aim is described (line 59), I'm missing a part of the outline of the article, the context the research has been done, the need for this research and so on. This is needed to understand how all elements are related to each other.

'the main aim of the work' (line 59) this research, this article)?;  'methodological approach' (line 62); which one? describe. little research has been done (line 55,56) what was? point out the national research context and the international context (or refer to this mildly). For example: in the Netherlands there is a lot of attention to the New Dutch Waterline and how to keep it as a structure. There is work done on Italian fortified landscapes Scrapola and so on....

In the part between approx lines 68 and 96, the location is described, but really general and without a heading to clearify. I would suggest to move description (the history and lay out of the fortress landscape and its greenery) (lines 241-362) to this part (approx line 96 and further) and then focus on the values and changes in the current situation and how to value them as a (with the questionnaire, table 3) and the tourism analysis. And use more headings to organise the argumentation. 

The explanation of the research and the content in which this has been done and how you can read the tables/ figures (what are specific axisses, what is question 1, 2 and so on) can be improved, because these are not complete/ only partly explained. Please explain in what context the WNET or the criterion (criteria?) (7 points, line 433- 457) are based on and why were these needed? Why is there nothing for the green aspects in it (or explain why not).  

 

failures in the text:

line 493, table 5??? there is no table 5

Torotno (Toronto)? Bourtarg (Bourtange?), why Naarden, because Naarden is not part of a defence line- other fortified cities are part of defence lines, such as the New Dutch Waterline?

some missing dots, write mistakes...

references; pages missings of books- all is refering to entire books or articles.

why italic parts? it is not clear why this has a different layout.

 

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

In the authors’ opinion, the problems raised in the article are closely related: the way the space is organized within the fortress landscape, including the share of biologically active area, various forms of greenery, including trees and bushes and water elements, architectural elements and the connection of individual objects with each other, as well as their connection with the natural system of the city, making these objects elements of a unique cultural landscape. A ring fortress is a special case, e.g. the Warsaw Fortress.

Therefore, the article focuses on a multi-faceted approach, defining the uniqueness of the fortress landscape in the context of the city. The objects described perform natural functions in a broader sense, entering the natural system of the city, combining individual and strategic parts of this system or being its nodal elements in themselves. They are also a kind of "reaches" connecting the natural system of the city with its surroundings. Moreover, they perform natural functions on a smaller, local scale. Due to the way such objects are used and exploited, very often as green areas in the form of arranged parks or uncontrolled greenery, such constitutes a valuable natural resource, being enclaves for many plant and animal species.

At the same time, due to the presence of the historical tissue, they constitute a valuable resource of the cultural landscape. Not only is this tissue closed in buildings, but it can also be found in a wider context - in spatial arrangements, related to the terrain within the defensive work, as well as in the remains of deliberate planting, mainly comprised by trees. These plantings accompanied defensive works in different forms and had different purposes. The planting was an integral part of the whole defence work. Today, one can find only some remnants of the plantings whose existence is testified by the information found in archival iconography or descriptions. In the past, the historical tissue of the defensive work was still present in a wider spatial range, related to the organization of even pre-shooting areas and communication links. The latter were covered by the urban tissue and became the canvas on which the street layout developed. Thus, it can be seen that these objects have a fundamental influence not only on the natural layer, but also on the layout and the composition of the city, both in terms of dominant views, such as the Citadel, and the very organization of urban space – parks and city-gardens.

The concept of the cultural concept is strongly connected with the landscape attractiveness. If such a landscape is highly valued, at the same time it becomes an attractive landscape, which is the basis for a tourist/recreational product. Such a product, along with the programme of the place, is dedicated to various recipients, from the so-called qualified tourist, well-prepared and knowing his or her expectations, to the visitors using such facilities in an undefined, casual, spontaneous and everyday way. That is why nowadays the cultural landscape associated with a defensive work is becoming so attractive being not only an element of the urban space, but also part of the leisure and educational programme.

Contemporary tourism/recreation is something different than a decade ago. Today's consumer expects more from a tourism product. Therefore, for a product to attract a consumer it must meet several criteria. The first one refers to its originality. The following ones have, in a sense, a secondary value, being connected with the preparation of the facility, making it available and programming it. In the Polish reality, despite huge military resources in the landscape, few facilities are used to a high degree. It results from the fact that very often military objects were unavailable, being used exclusively by the Polish army. Fortunately, this has changes and nowadays they are gaining a new value.

All of this becomes an important component of the package of ecosystem services, provided by the fortress elements of the cultural landscape.

The research focused only on the landscape itself and the evaluation of its components. Further research results relating to the sociological aspects of recreation in the military landscape and qualified military tourism will be presented in subsequent works.

This research is not carried out within the framework of a grant or other project form. Therefore, such an observation is not included in the text.

A remark concerning the European context is included in the text. It was decided to refer to the Dutch example, due to the nature of the fortifications and the time of their construction, which is closest to the Warsaw Fortress.

Note on the use of headings - included

Note on the transfer of the historical analysis of the Warsaw Fortress: The authors have decided to stick to their vision and version due to the adopted composition of the article.

The WNET method is described in detail in Materials and Methods.

Line 493 – the note has been taken into account

The geographical names were corrected and the fortress at Naarden was also removed.

Corrected: editorial errors, including erroneous formatting - italics

References - page numbers were not given since the article refers to the entire studies . Giving specific pages would, in the opinion of the authors, would make it illegible.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

In the second version the aims of the paper are much clearer now. However, it still lacks theoretical depth in the introduction, in which the authors could still indicate at least one or two authors that have described the idea of ecosystem services. For instance, it is mentioned four categories of ecosystem services (line 74), but what are these four categories? Who created them? And how do they relate to cultural landscape and recreation/tourism. Now the authors have described several viewpoints, but these viewpoints lack theoretical support (quotes, definitions).

 

Additional editing should be made as there are typing mistakes (line 681), strange sentences, such as the line 102: „The concept of the cultural concept is strongly connected with the landscape attractiveness“; or repetitions (such as line 208-209). The editing process should also deal with stylish corrections, like finding alternative beginning to the sentences (line 73).

Author Response

All suggestions have been accepted. Information on ecosystem services has been supplemented and typing errors have been corrected.

Reviewer 3 Report

The new texts should be read again for small textual mistakes. The changes have made it clearer, as well as the pictures included in the text. Be aware that these new text have some textual  mistakes

For the example of The New Dutch Waterline, be aware;

The Old Dutch Waterline (line 65 and further) was established by Maurica and Frederick Henri (17th C) and this line is different from the New Dutch Waterline, established from 1815 on (furtherone in the text). The New Dutch Waterline is being changed and developed as a recreation/ military landscape in the last twenty years and well-known for its.

See more information:

https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783030002671, see chapter 13 Hold the line.

Author Response

All suggestions have been accepted. Information about the New Dutch Waterline has been supplemented and typing errors have been corrected.