Constructing an Indicator System for Cultural Sustainability in Chinese Cities under the Objective of Urban Renewal and Capability Measurement

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

• The manuscript contains original research questions and represents an extension of the current knowledge, however, the overall topic of cultural sustainability is already very well-researched. 
• The topic of the manuscript being cultural sustainability is in the scope of the journal.
• The manuscript is focused on Chinese cities. However, it refers to other "foreign" megacities. In order for this research and its results to be universally applicable and useful the connection between Chinese and other, international mega-cities should be emphasized. 
• In Section 2. there is a certain level of repetition, and well-known topics such as culture, or cultural sustainability should not be overly explained. 
• In section 3. each of the seven first-level indicators (elements of cultural sustainability) used for this research is extensively elaborated and explained. If these indicators were derived from previous research studies their interpretation should be more focused.  However, in Figure 1 the network of first-level and second-level indicators is shown, while the third-level indicators are missing.
• In section 4. the presentation of the results should be more focused. Are the results presented in section 4. or section 5.? The structure of the 
• A more complex methodology is needed in order to have stronger and more focused research results and therefore, stronger scientific contribution. A more detailed analysis should be applied alongside the presented one, so the results presented in section 5. are not too general.
• The overall structure of the paper should be revised. Some of the methodology presented in section 4. should be part of the section regarding Materials and methods, while Results and Discussion should be in separate sections. The manuscript is missing a conclusion. 
• There is a certain level of repetition in the section 4.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Constructing an Indicator System for Cultural Sustainability in Chinese Cities under the Objective for Urban Renewal and Capability Measurement

Title:  The current title understates the beneficial contribution of this article because, rather than just “constructing” the indicator system, their analysis resulted in suggestions, foci, considerations, and specific ways (pages 12 and 13) that these communities in China and other communities could sustain their cultural identity.  With COVID, climate change, economic uncertainty, Ukraine, and divided countries, culture is a bedrock on which everyone can and needs to lean. This article provides the framework for analysis as a counter to negative urban renewal but also offers ways to retain the culture. What about, “Constructing an Indicator System to Identify how Cultural Sustainability in Chinese Cities is Enhanced and Maintained for Positive Urban Renewal.”

Abstract: Urban renewal is about keeping old buildings, building new buildings, installing roads/sidewalks, and parks, and planting trees. The definition from the web is, “urban renewal - the redevelopment of areas within a large city, typically involving the clearance of slums.” This paper takes a “broad view” of urban renewal and applies it to cultural sustainability. The beginning of the abstract should reflect the information in these three sentences because now the reader might be confused about some of the seven categories as they are not directly related to urban renewal/buildings.  The reader also needs help because the seven elements are lost in font.  Therefore, the authors should consider always putting the numbers 1-7 in front of the seven elements to help the reader.  Near the middle of the abstract, the results are too vague “severe polarization and significant differences.”  How would this translate into buildings, streets, store fronts, etc.?”  Success in Beijing is only defined in generalities such as economic vitality, cultural vitality. The real findings are on pages 14. The authors offer details about what cities should specifically do. Chongqing could consider more industrial planning and cultural exchanges. The conclusion states that people’s happiness index is a factor, but the current vocabulary doesn’t capture happiness enough, especially through the lense of urban renewal (building/rebuilding).

1, Introduction

  The Introduction discusses urban disease, but the reader needs a definition of urban disease, i.e., is it plague, crime, pollution, rats…?  The list of built environment features are in the sentence with citation [4] and the text in this article would benefit from similar specificity at times. All of those elements are about buildings.  The summary (lines 63-68) is in very generic terms, but application of the Indicator System produced results at the end of the article. This summary section could be more specific and show results that tell readers what to “build.” As written above, we are in a crisis and, in China, many buildings are being bulldozed that should be saved and new inappropriate buildings are being built that do not showcase the Chinese culture and bring happiness.  What does a city “look like” if the findings from the study are applied? 

2. Literature Review

Some of the sentences are too long, too general, and too hard to follow Lines.108-113   

3. Materials and Methods

The seven elements of cultural sustainability are lost in the heading’s number system.  Maybe at the end of the 3.1 paragraph, the authors could remind the reader of the seven indicators and add numbers before each.  Now, it is hard to realize that the subheading 3.1.1. is a heading of great significance because it is one of the seven indicators. Maybe the spacing could allow for paragraphs to be moved to the left or right so the seven are more prominent.  Much of the text has the same paragraph spacing setback so all the sections appear to be similar in importance.

On lines 110-112, there is mention of B3 but the reader has not yet been told about B1, B2, etc.  the same is true on line 122.  There should be an explanation of B1, etc. before these are used.

On Figure 1, the authors need to put numbers on the 7 indicators (large font) to help the reader. The Figure description should be “Network hierarchical structure of the seven indicators (or measures if you prefer that word).

Some readers just look at the tables and Table 1 and Table 2 need some additional headings or reference to Figure 1 to understand the meaning of the B’s.  Anyone picking up an article should be able to look at a table and understand what they are reading. Otherwise, they might just put down the article.   The authors need to help the reader. 

For the font and demarcation of the seven, the same issue applies on pages 11-13.  Now, the important seven appear just to be basic paragraph headings. 

More details could be added in the sections on pages 13 and 14.  With the problems going on in the world and the need to build the best buildings possible in China, the world doesn’t need another peer reviewed article for the sake of having a publication. The world needs the guidance about what to build that this article can provide.  The goals are many but a primary one is to provide happiness. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

1） The manuscript’s title should be modified to “Constructing an Indicator System for Cultural Sustainability in Chinese Cities under the Objective of Urban Renewal”.

 

2） The indicator system of the seven elements of cultural sustainability is suitable to measure capacity for culutual sustainability in Chinese cities should be explained more clearly.

 

3）The literature review enumeration analysis should be more sufficient, more literature including domesitc literature need to be listed.

 

4）The value of cultural heritage should not be measured only in terms of quantity and length of time in section 3.1.1.

 

5）The Composition of indicators should be presented in a table format.

 

Point 6: The detail explanation of the method chosen is needed in section 3.2 ,3.3and4.1，especially the principle and formula of TOPSIS method need to be specified to learn calculation step and usage process .

 

Point 7: The order of contentss and tables should correspond.

 

Point 8:The citation format should be correct from lines 630 to 631,644 to 645,etc.

The standardization of language expression and the preciseness of logic need to be improved, such as spelling mistake, unclear expression and repetition.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript has been significantly changed.

The most important was the revision of the structure and the results are presented in a more focused manner.