Assessment of Historic Cities within the Context of Sustainable Development and Revitalization: The Case of the Walled City North Nicosia
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper focuses historic city of Nicosia and intends to determine the positive and negative aspects and inadequacies of the revitalization strategies implemented in the city in the context of the sustainable development.
The paper lacks graphic materials as contribution to the clearity to the wider international audience. Iti s adviced to the authors to add graphic materials presenting historical urban fabric historical houses in the original state. Iti s required to present „ the unique identity of Nicosia“ (raw 574).
Legent letters in figureas are too small and therefore unreadeable.
In the references refered in text, particular page(s) are missing.
Regarding term “historical urban texture” or “texture” (frequently used in the paper) the translation is doubtful. Consider terms structure or morphology. Discuss the used terms.
Contextualization of the presented research is required.
Author Response
RESPONSE TO REVIEWER 1 COMMENTS
Point 1: The paper lacks graphic materials as contribution to the clearity to the wider international audience. Iti s adviced to the authors to add graphic materials presenting historical urban fabric historical houses in the original state. Iti s required to present „ the unique identity of Nicosia“ (raw 574).
Response 1:
In order to present the identity of Nicosia, graphical materials are used to show the historical urban identity of the city. The graphic has been added to the text to explain the percentage of the city with the point of the architectural value of the buildings, building heights, used-unused buildings, and re-functioned buildings. We believe that these graphics explain the historic urban fabric of Nicosia and will clarify to a wider international audience.
Point 2: Legent letters in figureas are too small and therefore unreadeable.
Response 2:
The size of the legend letters is increased to be more readable.
Point 3: In the references refered in text, particular page(s) are missing.
Response 3:
Particular pages are added to the reference list.
Point 4: Regarding term “historical urban texture” or “texture” (frequently used in the paper) the translation is doubtful. Consider terms structure or morphology. Discuss the used terms.
Response 4:
The term “texture” is replaced with “structure and morphology
Frequently used terms in the text have been reviewed. and rearrangements have been made.
Point 5: Contextualization of the presented research is required
Response 5: The revisions and additions are done according to the comments, in order to improve the contextualization of the revised version of the research.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Attached herewith is a comment to the author
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
RESPONSE TO REVIEWER 2 COMMENTS
Point 1: Methodology, findings, contributions and implications of the research are not stated in the abstract
Response 1:
The abstract has been reconsidered and methodology findings, contributions, and implications are stated.
Point 2: The main purpose of the writing/research is not well explained in the introduction section
Response 2:
In order to explain the main purpose of the study; Section ‘1.1 Research Goals’ has been added to the text.
Point 3: The methodology of the study needs to be well explained
Point 4: Need to include a brief research framework
Response 3&4:
The materials and Methods section methodology of the work is explained and in order to be more clear structure of the methodology is added as a graphical process explanation.
Point 5: author needs to rewrite the literature review section by including reading materials that are relevant to the manuscript and finally be able to explain what gaps have been left by previous researchers.
Response 5: Relevant reading materials have been added to the introduction. With the help of these materials and methodology, the gaps in the subject area were made more understandable.
Point 6: Findings, discussions and conclusions should refer to and relate what is obtained in the study area with other studies that have been discussed in the literature to see what the similarities, differences and uniqueness of findings in this area compared to other areas.
Response 6: In the findings and discussions and conclusion section we tried to explain what result was obtained from the study.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Thanks for the opportunity to review this interesting paper. Here are my suggestions for improvement:
Although I myself am not in a position to evaluate the use of English language, I still have to point it out because many phrases are repeated and are very confusing. For example, the authors used “depending on” frequently throughout the manuscript, but the meaning is unclear and confusing: “depending on the development (31, 213),” “depending on history (91),” “depending on its past (308),” “depending on the processes (379).” I hope the authors can elaborate the meaning without using the phrase “depending on.” Another example is many passive sentences (e.g., it is argued that, it is observed that, it is found that, it should be considered that, etc.). As I read the manuscript, I could not tell if it meant the author, previous studies, or general public. Also, in line 166, “It is generally accepted that” should be clear about who exactly accepted the idea. I hope the authors can use more active sentences throughout the manuscript.
Many sentences should be elaborated more. In line 34-35, for example, the authors say “Many cities in the Mediterranean geography including Mesopotamia, Egypt, Anatolia, and Greece have reached the present day without interruption.” What does it mean by “without interruption?” Have these cities preserved it well without any deterioration? Or, have these cities not experienced any outside interruptions? In lines 55-57, “the quality and liability (?) of the environment” does not make sense. Also, “Mechanisms that have not lost their buoyance(?)” is not clear at all. Please elaborate or rephrase the meaning of these sentences. This is not just the problem of these specific sentences. Line 50-51, 60-61, and other sentences across the paper are either too short or not fully elaborated and the meanings are not fully delivered.
I hope the authors can define the “historic cities” and clarify which cities deserve to be preserved and which cities do not. Should Nicosia be preserved simply because it is a historic city? Is everything about the city worth preservation? Also, the authors introduce the city of Nicosia here and there and explain why this study chose the city of Nicosia many times throughout the paper, which is unnecessary. Please reorganize the paragraphs across the sections to avoid the repetition of the same message.
The findings and the argument of this study are unclear. The entire section 4 introduces social and cultural, environmental, and economic characteristics of the city; however, this logic is not clear to me: why should we “integrate” those characteristics for the sustainable development of the city? And why should we, and how can we, include the views and demands of the tradesmen, residents, and local administrations? Who should consider all the aspects for the sustainable development?
Please be clearer about the theoretical contributions of this study.
Despite my critical comments, I believe that this is a very interesting and important study. I hope my comments do not discourage the authors from improving the quality of this manuscript.
Author Response
RESPONSE TO REVIEWER 3 COMMENTS
Point 1: Although I myself am not in a position to evaluate the use of English language, I still have to point it out because many phrases are repeated and are very confusing. For example, the authors used “depending on” frequently throughout the manuscript, but the meaning is unclear and confusing: “depending on the development (31, 213),” “depending on history (91),” “depending on its past (308),” “depending on the processes (379).” I hope the authors can elaborate the meaning without using the phrase “depending on.” Another example is many passive sentences (e.g., it is argued that, it is observed that, it is found that, it should be considered that, etc.). As I read the manuscript, I could not tell if it meant the author, previous studies, or general public. Also, in line 166, “It is generally accepted that” should be clear about who exactly accepted the idea. I hope the authors can use more active sentences throughout the manuscript
Response 1:
The term “depending on” is searched through the all text and has been eliminated. The sentences which included the phrase has been re-writen.
The passive sentences whch mentioned by the reviewer (it is argued that, it is observed that, it is found that, it should be considered that) and the other ones (it is generlly accepted that, which used within the text re-writen to avoid the confusion.
Point 2: Many sentences should be elaborated more. In line 34-35, for example, the authors say “Many cities in the Mediterranean geography including Mesopotamia, Egypt, Anatolia, and Greece have reached the present day without interruption.” What does it mean by “without interruption?” Have these cities preserved it well without any deterioration? Or, have these cities not experienced any outside interruptions? In lines 55-57, “the quality and liability (?) of the environment” does not make sense. Also, “Mechanisms that have not lost their buoyance(?)” is not clear at all. Please elaborate or rephrase the meaning of these sentences. This is not just the problem of these specific sentences. Line 50-51, 60-61, and other sentences across the paper are either too short or not fully elaborated and the meanings are not fully delivered.
Response 2: The explanation; “Many cities in the Mediterranean geography including Mesopotamia, Egypt, Anatolia, and Greece have reached the present day without interruption” removed from that paragraph. New sentences added to the paragraph to support the explanation in a better way.
The definitions; “the quality and liability of the environment”, “mechanisms that have not lost their buoyance” also removed and the paragraphs re-organized by supporting with new explanations.
Point 3: I hope the authors can define the “historic cities” and clarify which cities deserve to be preserved and which cities do not. Should Nicosia be preserved simply because it is a historic city? Is everything about the city worth preservation? Also, the authors introduce the city of Nicosia here and there and explain why this study chose the city of Nicosia many times throughout the paper, which is unnecessary. Please reorganize the paragraphs across the sections to avoid the repetition of the same message.
Response 3: The definition of the “historic city” is improved and the importance “why they deserve to be preserved tried to be explained. The authors believe that the ones which preserve tangible and intangible heritage deserve to be preserved and they tried to highlight this explanation.
Explanations about the Nicosia City reviewed and reorganized to prevent repetition.
Point 4: The findings and the argument of this study are unclear. The entire section 4 introduces social and cultural, environmental, and economic characteristics of the city; however, this logic is not clear to me: why should we “integrate” those characteristics for the sustainable development of the city? And why should we, and how can we, include the views and demands of the tradesmen, residents, and local administrations? Who should consider all the aspects for the sustainable development?
Response 4:
Findings and discussion section developed. Arguments on research increased on findings and discussion sections. Also, role of stakeholders added in the same section and conclusion
Point 5: Please be clearer about the theoretical contributions of this study.
Response 5: Revisions and additions are done according to comments and we tried to explain theoretical contributions in the text
Point 6: Despite my critical comments, I believe that this is a very interesting and important study. I hope my comments do not discourage the authors from improving the quality of this manuscript.
Response 6: We appriciate for the valuable comments, we try to revise the manuscript accordingly.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
My concerns about the previous version has been addressed properly and successfully. I appreciate the efforts the authors have put into this version.
