Research on the Spatial and Temporal Distribution and Evolution Characteristics of Ancient Architectural Heritage in Southeastern Zhejiang

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper gives valuable information supported by data. The overall level of the paper is good. It is well organized easy to read. However, I have just a few small comments on the manuscript.

Figure resolution/quality needs to be improved (particularly Figure 7).

Conclusions need to be strengthened. Please, improve it, add some key results supported with data, and make it more effective.

Based on the key findings and conclusions, it may be better to give more recommendations for future analyses.

Author Response

Reviewer 1:

The paper gives valuable information supported by data. The overall level of the paper is good. It is well organized easy to read. However, I have just a few small comments on the manuscript.

1.Figure resolution/quality needs to be improved (particularly Figure 7).

Authors: We agree with this comment.The resolution of all images in the article has been improved (Image 7 has been changed to Image 8).

2.Conclusions need to be strengthened. Please, improve it, add some key results supported with data, and make it more effective.

Authors: We sincerely accept this suggestion. In the conclusion section of the article, key results supported by data have been added. Thank you for your suggestion. These modifications make the conclusion section of the paper more persuasive.

3. Based on the key findings and conclusions, it may be better to give more recommendations for future analyses.

Authors: Thank you for pointing this out. In the concluding section, additional suggestions for future analysis have been added, outlining the author's upcoming research directions.

Thank you for your suggestions. They have been greatly helpful for our article, and we will continue to make efforts and strive for more research achievements.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I want to congratulate you on the choice of the topic and the robust structure of the article.

It touches on a very relevant topic for many cities and settlements left over from the development process, unfortunately forgetting the inner values inside which are a consistent part of our urban identity. Then bases for our future.

Author Response

Indeed, as witnesses and bearers of human civilization, architectural heritage holds significant social value and cultural significance. They serve as important symbols for cultural inheritance, shaping urban identity, and fostering social recognition. The inherent value of architectural heritage forms the foundation for the future development of a nation. Our team is committed to making continuous efforts and contributing to the research on architectural heritage.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments attached

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English is OK except for few corrections.

Author Response

Reviewer 3:

1.Buildings that are regarded as ‘heritage’ are historical as well. Therefore, the author may remove ‘Historical’ from ‘Historical architectural heritage’.

Authors: All instances of "historical architectural heritage" in the article have been changed to "architectural heritage." Indeed, buildings considered as "heritage" also possess historical significance.

2.The author may consider changing ‘a place rich with vast cultural heritage’ to ‘a place rich with vast culturalheritage’. I believe cultural heritage are not items that were ‘gathered’ in a participanr place or location.

Authors: We sincerely accept this comment, which greatly enhances the article. The phrase 'as a gathering place of cultural heritage' has been changed to 'a place rich with vast cultural heritage.' Although these two phrases may appear similar, their meanings differ significantly. Thank you for your careful guidance.

3.The author indicated that southeastern Zhejiang as a region rich with cultural heritage. Therefore, it will be beneficial to understand the nature of cultural heritage in the region. The author can indicate the distribution(classification, location, uses etc) of cultural heritage across the region.

Authors: We agree with this comment. The distribution and classification of architectural heritage in southeastern Zhejiang have been indicated. Figure 2 has been added to illustrate the distribution of different building types in the region. This point was indeed necessary to provide readers with a quick understanding of the research area's general situation.

4.The author employs Kernel density analysis method and Nearest Neighbourhood Index as methods to analysisspatiotemporal characteristics of the heritage sites. However, the author needs to justify the choice of these methods. There are other methods such as finite mixture models, local likelihood density estimation etc that can be used as well.

Authors: We agree with this comment. The reasons for choosing kernel density analysis and nearest neighbor index as the analytical methods have been stated in section 2.2. Of course, finite mixture models, local likelihood density estimation, and other methods are also excellent choices that will be involved in the author's future research.

5.With the methods of analysis used, the discussion is OK. However, the author needs to demonstrate other factors beyond topography and landforms that may have influenced the spatial distribution of cultural heritage in southeastern Zhejiang.

Authors: Thank you for pointing this out. In the conclusion section, it has been proposed that factors influencing the spatial distribution of cultural heritage in southeastern Zhejiang include not only topography and geomorphology but also water management reforms, immigration policies, administrative changes, and cultural ideologies.

Thank you very much for your assistance. Your suggestions have greatly enhanced the article, especially the subtle changes, which have benefited us immensely. We have learned a lot from them, and their impact on us has been significant.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Substantive issues:

The article presents an interesting topic in relation to the safeguarding of heritage assets. However, due to the subject matter, there it is also easy to get lost in the non-scientific issues focusing exclusively on the descriptive point of view. For this reason, in my humble opinion, it would be advisable to promote more original questions of classification and study of heritage sites, for example, in relation to water resources and the state of conservation. 

The evolution of water resources is not dealt with in depth and it should be; all this in relation to the five periods studied. A significant concept is outlined in point 3.2.2.2 in which it is specified that almost half of the heritage buildings are less than five hundred metres from a river. However, it would be interesting to know what number corresponds to each dynasty. According with this, it would be interesting to know about other different water resources in history, if possible.

It is missing is a brief identification of the state of conservation (on a scale of one to five would be sufficient) of the properties studied, in order to make an initial diagnosis according to historical periods.

 

Formal issues:

Authors’ affiliation should not be prosaic.

Abstract should be shorter.

The font size in the image caption must be the size required by the publishers. It is now too small.

Revise the presentation of the tables according to the authors' guidelines. They can be 8pt size.

Figure 7 should be enlarged. It is also possible to choose the most representative period and compare in a different table the results with the others. It is also possible to separate the five periods and include them in each sub-section (from 4.3.1 - to 4.3.5), which is also valid for figure 8 (which is not identified and must be) of the location of heritage assets by period.

 

Author Response

Substantive issues:

1.The evolution of water resources is not dealt with in depth and it should be; all this in relation to the five periods studied. A significant concept is outlined in point 3.2.2.2 in which it is specified that almost half of the heritage buildings are less than five hundred metres from a river. However, it would be interesting to know what number corresponds to each dynasty. According with this, it would be interesting to know about other different water resources in history, if possible.

Authors: We sincerely accept this suggestion，and we have made modifications. The distances of architectural heritage from rivers have been calculated and recorded in Table 5, followed by further analysis in section 3.2.2.

2.It is missing is a brief identification of the state of conservation (on a scale of one to five would be sufficient) of the properties studied, in order to make an initial diagnosis according to historical periods.

Authors: Sincerely thank you for pointing out this point, and we have made modifications. The preservation status of architectural heritage in southeastern Zhejiang has been categorized into five classes, as described in section 2.1.This suggestion is very helpful for the article.

Formal issues:

1.Authors’ affiliation should not be prosaic.

Authors: We have added a more detailed introduction to the author in the article.

2.Abstract should be shorter.

Authors: The abstract has been revised to be more concise. 

3.The font size in the image caption must be the size required by the publishers. It is now too small.

Authors: We agree with this comment. The captions of the images have been modified to adhere to the journal's formatting requirements.

4.Revise the presentation of the tables according to the authors' guidelines. They can be 8pt size.

Authors: We agree with this comment. The table formatting has been adjusted according to the journal's guidelines.

5.Figure 7 should be enlarged. It is also possible to choose the most representative period and compare in a different table the results with the others. It is also possible to separate the five periods and include them in each sub-section (from 4.3.1 - to 4.3.5), which is also valid for figure 8 (which is not identified and must be) of the location of heritage assets by period.

Authors: We sincerely accept this comment, which greatly enhances the article. The clarity of Figure 7 has been enhanced (now labeled as Figure 8) and enlarged.Figure 8 has been split into five smaller figures, corresponding to each period, and placed within their respective subsections (Figure 9-13).

Thank you very much for your assistance. We have made revisions to the article according to your suggestions, and they have greatly improved the overall quality. We will learn from this experience and approach our future research with a more rigorous and objective perspective.

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

No comments

Thanks for following my review suggestions