Methods of Conserving and Managing Cultural Heritage in Classical Chinese Royal Gardens Based on 3D Digitalization
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The topic of the survey of historic gardens is fascinating. The text lacks a description of the current state of research and how the work carried out at the Royal Summer Garden has increased the current methodology for surveying trees (in particular) and other garden elements.
I suggest reading the book "il verde nel paesaggio storico di Roma, Roma 2016"
Author Response
Please see the attachment for details.
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1: The text lacks a description of the current state of research and how the work carried out at the Royal Summer Garden has increased the current methodology for surveying trees (in particular) and other garden elements.
Response 1: We thank the Reviewer #1 for raising this valuable comment. We apologize for the lacks a description of the current state of research.We have added a detailed description of the current state of research in the main part of the article, especially in the introduction.The latest current theoretical background and empirical studies have also been added as necessary.The empirical cases were comprehensively added and revised in the hope of presenting the findings more clearly.At the same time, in the third part of the article, 3.1.1 and 3.1.2, especially the thirteenth page was added and modified about how the work carried out at the Royal Summer Garden has increased the current methodology for surveying trees (in particular) and other garden elements.
Point 2: I suggest reading the book "il verde nel paesaggio storico di Roma, Roma 2016".
Response 2: We thank for the great suggestion.Based on your suggestion, we are carefully studying the book "il verde nel paesaggio storico di Roma" that you recommended. This book is fantastic! We will apply the methods and ideas in the book in our future research.The various elements in the historical landscape of gardens is indeed a matter well worth continuing to study.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper is a good example of a high standard of interdisciplinar survey with both a theoretical impact (documentation of heritage and historic data on parks) as well as results on a practical level (future maintanance).
The survey could possibly be extended towards a more inclusive screening of the surrounding city visible from the park by visitors. A good example is the way how Robert Venturi architects integrated the Benjamin Franklin museum in Philadelphia USA in its surroundings (original state in 1970s, not that of 2020). Another good example is the Moore Memorial Church complex in Shanghai (China) with a well fitting highrise building cladded with the same color of brick at one facade as the neogothic church complex. This scope of integration is explicitely recommended allready in the Venice Charter (1964) on heritage. Important is the communicatuion of the surroundings with the park, but also in a reverse sense, that sparse new elements in the park may possibly react on the surroudings.
The language of the paper is very "scientifical" but because of the interdisciplinary team involved, the high rate of complexity is correct in the eyes of the peer reviewer.
A difficult matter is both the scale of the illustrations as well as the colors presented. It is probably nescessary to often restrict presentations in print on a big scale for instance Din A1 Format or 70 x 100 cm as well as A3 in printed books, and not much smaller. For scientific use one can accept the A4 format.
Color is not very natural in the paper. Still the use of color is recommended by the peer reviewer, but for the reason to discriminate objects of different kind. True colors should be a goal of a rendering phase by CAD-artists by manipulating data clouds, for instance with the help of good photographs from diffrent seasons, respecting different warm or cold day or night light situations. Climat and season's effects on the parks should be of constant interest for its impact on the visitors. Many go into the park for personal reasons and may love melancholic weather impressions, the same or others like spring time with cherry blossom. These differences should be part of a differentiatted observation and discussion by the stake holders and administration.
An important issue is the question how open the big data files are for public access. This should be dealt with with great care. Even more important is that foreign sources should not be allowed to influence the priceless data volume, in order to avoid false data or manipulated data for intance for advertisement reasons.
...
Author Response
Please see the attachment for details
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Point 1: The survey could possibly be extended towards a more inclusive screening of the surrounding city visible from the park by visitors. A good example is the way how Robert Venturi architects integrated the Benjamin Franklin museum in Philadelphia USA in its surroundings (original state in 1970s, not that of 2020). Another good example is the Moore Memorial Church complex in Shanghai (China) with a well fitting highrise building cladded with the same color of brick at one facade as the neogothic church complex. This scope of integration is explicitly recommended already in the Venice Charter (1964) on heritage. Important is the communication of the surroundings with the park, but also in a reverse sense, that sparse new elements in the park may possibly react on the surroundings.
The language of the paper is very "scientifical" but because of the interdisciplinary team involved, the high rate of complexity is correct in the eyes of the peer reviewer.
Response 1: We thank the Reviewer for raising this valuable comment. We apologize for the problems.The suggestions you made are also our next upcoming work. The survey could possibly be extended towards a more inclusive screening of the surrounding city visible from the park by visitors.
At your suggestion, we have carefully studied the cases of Robert Venturi and Shanghai, China. And again, we have carefully studied the relevant articles of the Venice Charter (1964) on heritage.
Point 2: A difficult matter is both the scale of the illustrations as well as the colors presented. It is probably necessary to often restrict presentations in print on a big scale for instance Din A1 Format or 70 x 100 cm as well as A3 in printed books, and not much smaller. For scientific use one can accept the A4 format.
Color is not very natural in the paper. Still the use of color is recommended by the peer reviewer, but for the reason to discriminate objects of different kind. True colors should be a goal of a rendering phase by CAD-artists by manipulating data clouds, for instance with the help of good photographs from different seasons, respecting different warm or cold day or night light situations.
Response 2: We apologize for the scale of the illustrations and the colors presented.We have replaced and colored some of the images. However, some of the images are due to the colors that appear automatically in the software itself, and the original images have not been modified in order to make the article more authentic and scientific. The size and format of the images have also been modified according to the size required by the journal.
Point 3: Climate and season's effects on the parks should be of constant interest for its impact on the visitors. Many go into the park for personal reasons and may love melancholic weather impressions, the same or others like spring time with cherry blossom. These differences should be part of a differentiated observation and discussion by the stake holders and administration.
Response 3: At the same time, we note that you mention that "the impact of climate and season on parks should receive ongoing attention because of their impact on visitors. These differences should be part of a differentiated observation and discussion between stakeholders and management." We are following up with concerns and improvements, and thank you for your suggestions.
Point 4: An important issue is the question how open the big data files are for public access. This should be dealt with with great care. Even more important is that foreign sources should not be allowed to influence the priceless data volume, in order to avoid false data or manipulated data for intance for advertisement reasons.
Response 4: Regarding the openness of big data files to public access, as well as the subsequent data volume and data management, we also thank you for your reminder, and this will be the focus of future work in the future, and we will strictly control and manage it according to the relevant technology and policies.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear author/authors,
It is an interesting study that addresses one of the nowadays challenges of heritage preservation.
The article is based on rigorous research and a complex methodology, but requires some improvements in content in order to be accessible to a wider audience.
I propose the following adjustments:
- The abstract does not present very clear the purpose and objectives of the study;
- In the results section, concrete explanations are needed.
The study is very technical and difficult to be understood. More precise specifications are required regarding: the utility of the digital heritage information platform today and in the future; limits of its utilization, but not only from a technical point of view.
- Please respect the journal guidelines when writing references and correct some typing errors: e.g., words division into syllables at the end of some lines.
Best regards.
Author Response
Please see the attachment for details
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Point 1: The abstract does not present very clear the purpose and objectives of the study;In the results section, concrete explanations are needed.
Response 1: We thank the Reviewer for raising this valuable comment. We apologize for the problems.For this reason, we changed the abstract about the purpose and objectives of the study so that they are expressed more clearly; in the conclusion section, a more specific explanation about this study is made.
Point 2: A The study is very technical and difficult to be understood. More precise specifications are required regarding: the utility of the digital heritage information platform today and in the future; limits of its utilization, but not only from a technical point of view.
Response 2: We apologize for the problem.And, We thank the Reviewer for raising this valuable comment. Meanwhile,the utility of digital heritage information platform for today and the future; In the last part of this paper, the discussion part is added. And in order to explain more clearly, we added corresponding pictures.
Point 3: Please respect the journal guidelines when writing references and correct some typing errors: e.g., words division into syllables at the end of some lines.
Response 3: At the same time, the references were written carefully following the journal guidelines and correcting some typographical errors: for example, the words were divided into syllables at the end of some lines. Also, the article has been polished with the official organization of MDPI, so that the presentation could be more clearly understood. We are following up with concerns and improvements, and thank you for your suggestions.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear Authors,
Please find attached the paper you submitted with my comments concerning the first six pages. It is enough to me to require a necessary total review of the language used. Please also all the grammar have to be reviewed by requiring a English spoken support.
I'm very sorry for this but I've understand that you have done a valuable job, but up to now, it is incomprehensible.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment for details
Response to Reviewer 4 Comments
Point 1: Please find attached the paper you submitted with my comments concerning the first six pages. It is enough to me to require a necessary total review of the language used. Please also all the grammar have to be reviewed by requiring a English spoken support.
Response 1: We thank the Reviewer for raising this valuable comment. We apologize for the language. The manuscript has been polished with an official English editing service of MDPI. The grammatical mistakes and error types in the manuscript have been modified. The following is the certificate of English editing.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The review of the essay that the authors have done is satisfactory. The gaps in the illustration framework inherent to the current research have been filled. now for this work, it is proposed for publication
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1: The review of the essay that the authors have done is satisfactory. The gaps in the illustration framework inherent to the current research have been filled. now for this work, it is proposed for publication.
Response 1: We thank the Reviewer #1 for the valuable comments and suggests. Your comments and suggestions are important for us to improve and enhance our work in the future. With your help, the article was successfully revised, so thank you again. We have also added and enhanced the results of the empirical study, for example by adding pictures and textual representations about the scenarios and software applications of the example applications. In the meantime, we are carefully studying the book "il verde nel paesaggio storico di Roma, Roma 2016"recommended by you. We hope to have the opportunity to exchange and discuss related research progress in more depth in the future.
Best regards.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear author/authors,
The article has been consistently improved following the recommendations.
A few more corrections are required when writing the authors in References, at least for the first part. Correct is family name, followed by first name initial.
Best regards.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Point 1: A few more corrections are required when writing the authors in References, at least for the first part. Correct is family name, followed by first name initial.
Response 1: We thank the Reviewer #2 for the valuable comments and suggests. We have carefully reviewed the format of the full text and related reference writing issues, and re-edited and reorganized the entire manuscript using professional literature editing software.
We admire your careful and thoughtful working attitude.Your comments and suggestions are important for us to improve and enhance our work in the future. Thank you again.
Best regards.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear Authors,
I do really appreciate the new version of your paper. Now it can be considered for the review.
I have underlined (in the attached file) the main comment and correction to be taken in consideration for the next version.
More in general, I think you have to do still some work on the formality of your paper (acronyms, citations, captions...) and some work on the organization of the paper: Why you present the flow chart as figure 14? If it is presented earlier could help in its readability. In some case I had the feeling to read a continuous "introduction" of methods/instrument.
You are not far to the proper/final version which could better emphasize your great and worthy work
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 4 Comments
Point 1: I have underlined (in the attached file) the main comment and correction to be taken in consideration for the next version.
Response 1: We thank the Reviewer #4 for the valuable comments and suggests. We have carefully revised your underlined suggestions one by one. These changes are really important to the improvement of our article.
Point 2: More in general, I think you have to do still some work on the formality of your paper (acronyms, citations, captions...) and some work on the organization of the paper: Why you present the flow chart as figure 14? If it is presented earlier could help in its readability. In some case I had the feeling to read a continuous "introduction" of methods/instrument.
Response 2: We thank the Reviewer #4 for the valuable comments and suggests. We apologize for the the formality and the organization of the paper.
We have carefully reviewed the format of the full text and related writing issues, and re-edited and reorganized the entire manuscript using professional literature editing software.At the same time, we have adjusted the structure of the article according to your comments.“Figure 14” and its description are placed earlier.And adjusted other relevant parts.
We admire your careful and thoughtful working attitude.Your comments and suggestions are important for us to improve and enhance our work in the future. Thank you again.
Best regards.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear Authors,
for this version I just added comment on the figures layout. I suggest to start again changing the caption and consequently the entire text. I also suggest to to re-analyse all my previous comments.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 4 Comments
Point 1: For this version I just added comment on the figures layout. I suggest to start again changing the caption and consequently the entire text.
Response 1: We thank the Reviewer for the valuable comments and suggests. We have carefully revised your suggestions one by one. Each caption of the figures in the article has been re-edited.Not only that, but it also fixes problems you've flagged, such as figure quality.These changes are really important to the improvement of our article.
Point 2: I also suggest to to re-analyse all my previous comments.
Response 2: We apologize for the mistake we have made on the paper.We have carefully reviewed the format of the full text and related writing issues, and re-edited and reorganized the entire manuscript using professional literature editing software.
In this version, some pictures and text descriptions have been deleted and changed. The structure of the article has also been adjusted accordingly.The references have also been reformatted and edited.
We admire your careful and thoughtful working attitude.Your comments and suggestions are important for us to improve and enhance our work in the future. Thank you again.
Best Regards.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
