Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

The author did make some modifications, but I still feel that there are many areas that need to be improved, especially in terms of the overall structure of the paper. I suggest that we still need to make major adjustments. The authors can refer to the structure of the MDPI paper to prevent the research from being written as a work report. Moreover, I did not see the theoretical research framework I wanted to see, nor amazing innovations. 

Author Response

Point 1:  The author did make some modifications, but I still feel that there are many areas that need to be improved, especially in terms of the overall structure of the paper. I suggest that we still need to make major adjustments. The authors can refer to the structure of the MDPI paper to prevent the research from being written as a work report. Moreover, I did not see the theoretical research framework I wanted to see, nor amazing innovations. 

Response 1: Thank you very much for your suggestion. According to your suggestions, I revised the paper again, which is mainly reflected in the description and sorting of the theoretical framework of the paper, and put it in the part of the third chapter. In the fourth chapter, I expanded the description according to the framework and research strategy, and also added a more targeted update strategy for Tanhualin district in the conclusion part. As for the innovation of this paper, we believe that in the reconstruction of historical and cultural blocks in China, they are often rebuilt after being completely torn down, and the original residents also adopt the way of relocation, which leads to the historical and cultural blocks actually become modern blocks with imitate antique shape, in which the context and residents' living habits disappear. Therefore, we believe that, The combination of the space built by residents and the protection of historical and cultural blocks can effectively preserve the authenticity of historical and cultural blocks. The interface features of the spontaneous space reflect the living habits of the residents, and the expression of the space can express the context information gathered in the block to a certain extent. We think it is our innovation to combine the living habits of residents with the characteristics of spontaneous space. Of course, we still keep the original idea, the purpose of this study is to protect the authenticity of the historical and cultural district voice, so the exciting results may not be expected.As for English language accuracy, I have entrusted the English editor of MDPI to deal with it.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Thank you for your thorough revision of the manuscript. However, the current version fails to effectively address the concerns I first raised. Please carefully revise all the issues I raised for the first time. Here, I list some obvious problems:

1. The current version has many uses of verbal English. Please revise it by a native speaker.

 

2. In the method part, the method needs to be specified rather than described on the surface.

 

3. The current reference citation format is very confusing (see references below):

11.Shao, J.; Liu, G.; Yuan, H.; Song, Q.; Yang, M.; Luo, D.; Zhang, X.; Tan, Y.; Zhang, Y. Evaluation and Scale Forecast of Underground Space Resources of Historical and Cultural Cities in China. ISPRS Int. J. Geo Inf. 2022, 11, 31. DOI: 10.3390/ijgi11010031

16.Dairong Xue, Guofang Zhai, Zhongyu He & Fumei Gu (2018) Experience of community construction in Japan and  enlightenment on historical block protection in China: A case study of Furukawa cho in Japan, Urbanism and  Architecture, 2018,(11),34 37.

17. Fumitsugu Kobayashi Naoko Saio A Study of the place peculiarities of exchange activities in Urban Rural Area : Case study of machizukuri NPO activities in Tsukuba .Journal of Rural Planning Association, 2009 02 28,27, 341 346. https://doi.org/10.2750/arp.27.341

 

4. When citing more sources, it is enough to indicate the first and the last one with hyphen. E.g. [22-24] instead of [22, 23, 24]. Please check the whole manuscript.

 

I hope the author takes every problem seriously. Meanwhile I recommend the authors continue to hone the manuscript and resubmit when ready.

Author Response

Point 1:  The current version has many uses of verbal English. Please revise it by a native speaker.

Response 1: Thank you very much for your suggestions on the paper. As for the colloquial English language, I have entrusted a company to polish it before, but it seems that it has not met your requirements, so I have entrusted the English editor of MDPI to revise it again. I hope it can meet your requirements this time. Of course, I also attach the proof of the first company I commissioned to finish the work.There is also proof of commissioned MDPI.

 

Point 2:  In the method part, the method needs to be specified rather than described on the surface.

Response 2: I revised the paper again, not only adding the explanation of the theoretical framework, but also pointing out the research methods used, including field investigation method, spatial typology classification, spatial semantic method, etc. At the same time, the logic of the article is combed again to make it more in line with the framework.

Point 3:  The current reference citation format is very confusing (see references below):

Response 3: I modified the format of the references according to the paper template of MDPI.

Point 4:  When citing more sources, it is enough to indicate the first and the last one with hyphen. E.g. [22-24] instead of [22, 23, 24]. Please check the whole manuscript.

Response 4: It has been corrected according to your requirements. Thank you again for your advice, and  give my sincerest regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Dear Authors, thanks for improving the paper. I think now is exciting and adequate to publish

 

I would have preferred the discussion to precede the results, and for limitations to be included in the results, it would be more consistent and make more sense. Think about it. 

Good luck

Author Response

Point 1:  Dear Authors, thanks for improving the paper. I think now is exciting and adequate to publishI would have preferred the discussion to precede the results, and for limitations to be included in the results, it would be more consistent and make more sense. Think about it. 

Response 1: Thank you very much for your advice, I think what you said is quite reasonable, so I have put the discussion in front of the conclusion according to your suggestion, and have made new additions to the conclusion.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

The photos in the text should not be placed close together, which will affect the visual expression effect, and there should be gaps between them.

Author Response

Point 1:  The photos in the text should not be placed close together, which will affect the visual expression effect, and there should be gaps between them.

Response 1: Thank you very much for your advice. I have processed the pictures according to what you said, and added gaps between the pictures.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

In this round, I have no other comments, but the authors should revise the manuscript according to my first round of comments. The current manuscript has not been greatly improved except for the language. Here, I will list the previous comments:

 

1. The Abstract section is somewhat nebulous and needs to be improved in terms of the focus of the study and the precision of results and findings. i.e., The authors should ensure that the Abstract is clear, brief, concise, and grammatically correct. The first sentence (Lines 5-10) of the Abstract is nearly half the length of the entire abstract and should be broken up into two to three concise statements. The authors should present salient results in the Abstract to attract the reader. In other words, the Abstract section needs to be rewritten.

 

2. Objectives should be restated clearly at the end of the Introduction section.

 

3. In the Method section, the method needs to be specified rather than described on the surface (Lines 238-246).

 

4. The authors should make sure that the Conclusions include 1) a problem statement, 2) an approach to solving the problem with great brevity, 3) the most salient results, and 4) implications (in brief). This should be in paragraph form. i.e., bulleted lists and subsections should be very much removed from the Conclusions.

 

5. The current reference citation format is still confusing (see several references below. Pay special attention to the author's abbreviation). Please check all references.

 

6.Garau, C.; Annunziata, A.; Yamu, C. The Multi-Method Tool ‘PAST’ for Evaluating Cultural Routes in Historical Cities: Evidence from Cagliari, Italy. Sustainability. 2020, 12, 5513. DOI: 10.3390/su12145513

7.JianboLi; JinxiangZhang. The urban renewal evolvement since modern times and thought of nowadays China urban renewal. Urban Problems. 2003, 5, 68-71. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1002-2031.2003.05.016

8.KeFang. Developing Processes of Western Urban Renewal and its Enlightenment. Urban Planning review. 1998, 1, 59-61+51-66.

Author Response

Point 1: In this round, I have no other comments, but the authors should revise the manuscript according to my first round of comments. The current manuscript has not been greatly improved except for the language. Here, I will list the previous comments:

Response 1: Thank you very much for your advice. I reviewed the first round of revision suggestions. Except for format and language issues, I think the article has been greatly revised. It is mainly manifested in reorganizing logic and adding some new chapters. It is mainly reflected in the methodology and research framework, and the third chapter is added. At the same time, the reference to "methodology" in Chapter 2 of the first round was replaced by "implementation of the research framework" in Chapter 4, and the summary was changed again. See below for a more detailed answer.

Point 2:  The Abstract section is somewhat nebulous and needs to be improved in terms of the focus of the study and the precision of results and findings. i.e., The authors should ensure that the Abstract is clear, brief, concise, and grammatically correct. The first sentence (Lines 5-10) of the Abstract is nearly half the length of the entire abstract and should be broken up into two to three concise statements. The authors should present salient results in the Abstract to attract the reader. In other words, the Abstract section needs to be rewritten.

Response 2: According to your suggestion, I have changed the abstract again. In the abstract, the main research methods are presented, the main findings are clarified, and the final objective is explained. At the same time, I tried my best to simplify the language of the abstract, reducing the length of each sentence. In general, I have divided the abstract into four statements. I hope this change can meet your requirements. Of course, in terms of language, I entrusted MDPI to edit the modified part again.

Point 3:  Objectives should be restated clearly at the end of the Introduction section.

Response 3: At your suggestion, I re-added a statement about the final goal at the end of the introduction. The language has also been delegated to MDPI for modification.

Point 4: In the Method section, the method needs to be specified rather than described on the surface (Lines 238-246).

Response 4: With regard to this part, major changes have occurred, and I think it is necessary to elaborate on them. In the position of the first draft, the title here is "Method". However, according to the suggestions of all reviewers in the first round of review, the title here is changed to "Implementation of the Research Framework" in the later version. The methodology has a separate chapter, which identifies the methodology used and the research strategy. In this chapter, the main purpose is to describe the process of field research. So we don't think we need to specify too much "Method" here. Of course, according to your suggestion, we still add a relatively brief description of the method, hoping that the change can meet your requirements. Also added is an explanation about the image, which is reflected in the fourth image.

Point 5:  The authors should make sure that the Conclusions include 1) a problem statement, 2) an approach to solving the problem with great brevity, 3) the most salient results, and 4) implications (in brief). This should be in paragraph form. i.e., bulleted lists and subsections should be very much removed from the Conclusions.

Response 5: As for the conclusion, I have revised it according to your suggestions. Specifically, the title of the section is deleted, so that the whole conclusion is logically expanded according to the problem statement, research findings, solution method (in this paper, the updated strategy), and meaning. Of course, we also realize that the logic you proposed is more clear. Thank you very much for your advice.

Point 6: The current reference citation format is still confusing (see several references below. Pay special attention to the author's abbreviation). Please check all references.

Response 6: I combed the reference format again, especially the author's abbreviations.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

The authors produced an extensive revision where they detail how they addressed the comments and in some cases where they did not why.I really appreciate the way the authors present their opinion on these topics and I believe that it should be up to them to take the final decision. Obviously, the article will be signed by them and it should reflect their ideas and this will not detract much of the high-quality of the article. 

Again I would like to congratulate the authors for their interesting contribution.

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.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Besides some comments on English language, Editing and structure, the research presented lacks rigorous methodology that could be verified or traced back to clear reasoning.

The methodology used and the observations reported lacks scientific foundation. The discussion is also quite subjective and thus the results do not hold lots of merit for the scientific community.

 

Authors should reconsider the above and the research might need major reform to be publishable.

Reviewer 2 Report

Overall and Major Comments

I think this paper has done some work, but there are still many parts to be improved. There are still many parts missing in the structure of the article. First, we should add theoretical framework research, which is very important for humanities and social science articles. Secondly, we should also consider adding technical routes. In addition, the format of the paper needs to be carefully revised.

 

Specific Comments

(1)   Lines 5-8: Please check the author format.

(2)   Please check whether the line interval meets the requirements of MDPI papers?

(3)   There should be a space after the period.

(4)   Lines 20-21: Pay attention to the spaces between keywords.

(5)   As an academic paper, not a graduation thesis, Introduction does not need to be expanded so much.

(6)   Separate the research area from the Introduction.

(7)   Add study area location map.

(8)   Line 169：Remove “The”.

(9)   I think the authors need build a theoretical framework after introduction.

(10)The discussion and conclusion should be written separately.

Reviewer 3 Report

Overall, the topic is interesting and I enjoyed reading it in detail. Nevertheless, there are some obvious issues in the manuscript that must be solved. Therefore, I suggest that the following concerns should be considered for revision.

1. The Abstract section needs to be rewritten due to incompleteness. In other words, you should provide the results/findings of this manuscript in the Abstract section.

2. Introduction. Unstructured. You started the introduction studying historic district and the abstract and title started studying historical-cultural district. Please do it uniform for whole manuscript.

3. In the Methodology section. More specific information about some methods is required. For example, please provide the specific information of the 49 space samples (Line 193). What is the ‘quantitative statistics’ ? (Line 205)……

4. The Discussions section is very short and confusing, some comparisons with literature data are incomplete or only outlined, without entering deeply in them. Therefore, I suggest to thoroughly rewrite this section, focusing the main concepts.

5. Please separate the Conclusion section from the Discussion section to improve readability.

6. It is suggested to improve the quality of the all figures.

7. The English needs a complete revision by a native speaker. The manuscript seems to be translated directly from another language.

8. The format of references is not uniform.