Strategies for China’s Historic Districts Regeneration in Responding to Public Health Emergencies

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

You might want to check your footnotes…they seem to be off in some spots (check page 3).

In figure 1, wouldn’t you say that urban development affects historic district renovation as well?

In Table 2, I am not sure that I agree with this sweeping generalization of urban regeneration in Western countries.  I am assuming this table is built off of the footnoted source “Development course and policy evolution of urban renewal in western cities”.  Possibly explore whether you would even need that source at all…it might just be an inconvenient distracter.

On page 4, line 139, what exactly do you mean by China’s “early days”? Please be more specific.

On lines 141-142, please remove the phrase “emergency management of emergencies”…it seems a bit awkward.  Just “emergency management” should be enough.

On lines 142-144, perhaps it would be helpful to enlighten the audience further as to what specific SARS policies China drafted.

On Table 3, it might be helpful if you added a column or two stating how many people this affected and how many deaths from the six epidemics.

Regarding the statement from lines 172-175, is this the hospital that ultimately collapsed?

On line 179, you start discussing disaster prevention parks, assuming that the audience understands what this concept is all about.  I know that you attempt to provide a definition within this paragraph, but I feel like the reader could use a more robust definition.  This is the first time that I have heard about this concept.

I did not know that China had a number of historic districts.  Is it possible that you can elaborate on the scope of historic districts within the country?  I suspect that the American concept of historic districts might conflict somewhat with that which occurs in China.  For example, historic districts are not generally thought of as “disadvantaged” in the U.S. (line 227), and living conditions of the people in these areas do not normally suffer.  In fact, it is usually quite the contrary…these residents are usually people of means and resources.  A compare and contrast description of the two types might really be helpful here.

On line 244, I would probably substitute the word “optimal” instead of “perfect”.

On line 267, I think you meant “which means that the virus may spread”

While I appreciate the attempt at drawing various pathways in Figure 4, it is hard for me to conceptualize how this proves helpful from a disaster response perspective.  It almost seems like there should be some descriptions about the use of the space embedded within the diagram and sketch.

I was intrigued by the following statement starting on line 287: “Thirdly, for those who have died, 287 for hygiene reasons, to prevent epidemic problems caused by the rapid decomposition of 288 bodies due to the weather.”  There is no mention up to this point about the duration of this particular disaster event.  Does this factor into the development of these disaster areas?  Is this a multi-day event?  If so, that would explain the concern about decomposing bodies, but what about a more short-term event?  Some context on this point might be helpful.

As with Figure 4, Figure 5 lacks much in specificity of layout and description.  A more detailed layout of these separation of spaces as pointed out in the previous paragraph would almost certainly be more helpful here.

On line 324, I would replace the current language with “renew, replace, and replenish”.

On line 329, what does “citation” mean?...It apparently has a context different from what I know it to be.

I like the Figure 9, and its implications.  Do these types of structures currently exist, or are these prototypes for a potential project in the future?  How quickly are these structures able to convert to a different form?

I am not sure that I follow the logic thread in this statement starting on line 426: “These unscientific and blind disinfections have caused 426 birds, insects, stray cats and dogs to flee in a frenzy with nowhere to go.” I am not sure what the connection is between the disinfectants and the dogs and pets.

While I generally liked the manuscript, I believe that the majority of the paper really focused on the issue of disaster prevention and response.  Overall, there is nothing wrong with that, but the historic district angle gets lost in the noise.  Why would it not be appropriate to suggest that these design elements should not be made throughout the entirety of the country?

Author Response

Dear Professor,

Thank you very much for your time involved in reviewing the manuscript and your very encouraging comments on the manuscript.

We would like to take this opportunity to thank you for all your time involved and this great opportunity for us to improve the manuscript. We hope you will find this revised version satisfactory.

And we would like to express our sincere thanks again to your constructive and positive comments.

With best wishes,

Yours sincerely,

Qiyu Gai

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This work is a description that suggests possibilities to consider in urban environments so that they become more resilient in the face of disasters. And that the proposed strategies are adapted to historic urban areas. However, it is not explained why  the  strategies proposed are  for historical areas and not useful for any city or urban area.

In reality, the study proposed here, the way it is executed, does not fit as a review work that in principle would seem to be, due to the scarce bibliographic review carried out regarding reference works that propose strategies, those described or others, that indicate that the proposed options are adaptable to historic areas. On the other hand, different and applicable possibilities are described, like infrastructure designs executed with possible plant materials that may arise in historical areas, but they are speculative and do not present a logic design in the face of the urgencies in which a social environment is found immediately after a disaster.

Both the proposals to look for design alternatives for structures together with materials that are present as ornamentals in public areas is a research issue that in itself must be an in-depth study of architecture and structural point point of view and not a proposal without in-depth analysis. The same happens with the approach of post-disaster natural purification strategies instead of applying chemicals.

In consequence this work does not provide an original support for the scientific community. This could serve as starting point for a deep research.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Professor,

Thank you very much for your letter and advice. We have revised the paper, and would like to re-submit it for your consideration. And we would like to express our sincere thanks to your constructive and valuable comments.

We have addressed the comments and hope that the revision is acceptable, and I look forward to hearing from you soon.

With best wishes,

Yours sincerely,

Qiyu Gai

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

First of all, and respecting research freedom, the article entitled Conversion for Normal and Disaster Time of Historic Districts from the COVID-19 Pandemic Experience is confusing because there is no clear and concise relationship between the title, the abstract, its development and conclusions. It should be better organized and defined in terms of structure, coherence and clarity.

In relation to the bibliographic citations, they should be specified in some cases such as those numbered 10, 11, 14, 16, 20, 21 and 24. Particularly in the case of number 24 (line 545), the reference is obvious, and a more specific reference to the proposed topic should be located.

The conclusions are scarce and imprecise with respect to the very broad development of the proposed subject matter.
Conclusions should be rewritten and, if necessary, numbered, according to each of the subheadings presented in the article.

The grammatical style needs to be checked because there are British and American English style expressions.

Overall, the research work shows a lack of logical coherence and little argumentative strength. Due to its thematic heterogeneity, it sounds a postgraduate work with little academic solidity. In this way the article corrections must be thoroughly done.

Author Response

Dear Professor,

Thank you very much for your time involved in reviewing the manuscript and your very constructive comments on the manuscript.

We would like to take this opportunity to thank you for all your time involved and this great opportunity for us to improve the manuscript. We hope you will find this revised version satisfactory.

And we would like to express our sincere thanks again to your constructive and significant comments.

With best wishes,

Yours sincerely,

Qiyu Gai

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear Authors,

The article is interesting and partly original.

Nevertheless, I have a few comments. I have listed them below.

1. Table 5 is a figure, not a table.

2. There are a lot of passages in the Research Overview chapter that don't fit in with it. A short explanation of the research gap should be found in the Introduction. It was she who caused the Authors' interest in this subject.

4. Fig. 4 and the related text completely do not match with the Research Review. Rather, they are findings - results in the field of explanations and theories,

5. Fig. 6, 7, and 9 are simple iconography that I find redundant in a research paper in the Sustainability journal. Who is the author of 7 tab. ?

6. The Discussion chapter should be separated from the Conclusions and precede the latter. It should also refer to the world discourse more broadly.

7. The list of references is small, taking into account the importance of the issues discussed in the article and the context of the authors' own research.

Sincerely

Author Response

Dear Professor,
Thank you very much for your time involved in reviewing the manuscript and your very constructive comments on the manuscript.
We would like to take this opportunity to thank you for all your time involved and this great opportunity for us to improve the manuscript. We hope you will find this revised version satisfactory. 
And we would like to express our sincere thanks again to your constructive and significant comments.

With best wishes,

Yours sincerely,
Qiyu Gai

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I appreciate the more than thorough edits that the author completed.  Well done!

Author Response

Dear Professor,

Thank you very much for your time involved in reviewing the manuscript and your very encouraging comments on the manuscript. We would like to take this opportunity to thank you for all your time involved and this great opportunity for us to improve the manuscript.

And we would like to express our sincere thanks again to your constructive and positive comments.

With best wishes,

Yours sincerely,

Qiyu Gai

Reviewer 2 Report

The corrections do not resolve the main issue of the research. There is not a methodological proposal, there is not adjusted methodological process and the conclusions could be performed before the investigation takes place. In my opinion this manuscript does not give any practical solution and the proposals are vague, the structures proposed are not technically solved

Author Response

Qiyuu:
[文件]

Qiyuu:
Dear Professor,
Thank you very much for your time involved in reviewing the manuscript and your very constructive comments on the manuscript.
We would like to take this opportunity to thank you for all your time involved and this great opportunity for us to improve the manuscript. We hope you will find this revised version satisfactory. 
And we would like to express our sincere thanks again to your constructive and significant comments.

With best wishes,

Yours sincerely,
Qiyu Gai

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors the paper draft has been properly corrected.

Author Response

Dear  Professor,

Thank you very much for your time involved in reviewing the manuscript and your very encouraging comments on the manuscript.

We would like to take this opportunity to thank you for all your time involved and this great opportunity for us to improve the manuscript. We hope you will find this revised version satisfactory.

And we would like to express our sincere thanks again to your constructive and positive comments.

With best wishes,

Yours sincerely,

Qiyu Gai

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear Authors,

I am pleased to note the Authors' activity towards improving the manuscript. I still have a note for the Discussion. As the name suggests, two entities should participate in it. Obviously, self-polemics are an inseparable element of the scientific discussion. I note this with satisfaction, although it is possible to wonder if it must be so marked. The main problem is that in DISCUSSION the Authors do not discuss any specific research already existing and its Author / Authors. These are many, and we see some of them in the Research Review.

I recommend a slight compression of self-polemics and the expansion of the Discussion chapter to refer to the research results and findings of other Authors.

Sincerely

Author Response

Dear Professor,

Thank you very much for your time involved in reviewing the manuscript and your comments on the manuscript.

We would like to take this opportunity to thank you for all your time involved and this great opportunity for us to improve the manuscript. We hope you will find this revised version satisfactory.

And we would like to express our sincere thanks again to your previous comments.

With best wishes,

Yours sincerely,

Qiyu Gai

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

As previously mentioned, the manuscript is dispersed in two aspects that, in my opinion, are very different and in neither originates a novel contribution, worse still, they are in the constructive architectural solution with serious shortcomings without delivering a significant practical contribution. The development of the structures proposed as an alternative refuge are not feasible and have weaknesses in terms of construction ease, but the underlying problem is still an architectural technique that does not present any novelty, functional or constructive as an emergency technique. Actually the underlying problems have not been solved by the authors

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf