Relevance and Role of Contemporary Architecture Preservation—Assessing and Evaluating Architectural Heritage as a Contemporary Landscape: A Study Case in Southern Italy

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The main focus of this paper is really interesting as it represents an attempt to empirically describe the issue related to the generative dynamics of the landscape. Yet, some aspects need to be revised. 

In general:

- There are several linguistic issues that make the text not clear in some passages and a general editing of the English language and style is required.

- Apart from the census work required by Ministry, the objectives of the research need to be clearer. It is not clear at all what the Authors' hypothesis is beside the description of the works they have mapped. For example, the tourist aspects and functions of the described architectures are never mentioned even if they are introduced by the title.

- The issue of Sustainability is never addressed in the manuscript. However, this should be a central focus for a paper published in this journal.

For more detailed comments and suggestions, please see the attached file

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Esteemed Colleague,

Thank you so much. I really appreciate your comments in helping the improvement of the paper. I reply point by point to your suggestions adding and/or modifying the previous version of the article.

 

Apart from the census work required by Ministry, the objectives of the research need to be clearer. It is not clear at all what the Authors' hypothesis is beside the description of the works they have mapped. For example, the tourist aspects and functions of the described architectures are never mentioned even if they are introduced by the title.

In the Introduction, I clarified the hypothesis and reformulated the research objective in front of the simple filing activity requested by the Ministry.

In “Materials and Methods”, I clarified the methodological aspects and separated the Ministry-proposed cataloguing procedure and the quality assessment methodology of recorded buildings and urban projects.

In “Results”, I have inserted a more detailed explanation of the selection method of the architectures and urban projects and a new paragraph in “results” to link the “methodology” and the “Results” paragraphs. There was really a gap between methods and results. I hope you agree with this solution.

 

The issue of Sustainability is never addressed in the manuscript. However, this should be a central focus for a paper published in this journal.

The issue is now declared in the “literature review” and I underlined that landscape as a whole concept is not cited in either in Bruntland Report or in Agenda 2030. UNESCO and CoE have enlightened the cultural relevance of landscape.

Whilst it is relevant the cultural positions of many authors, from Quaroni to Mostafavi&Doherty and Hodson&Marvin about the relevance of contemporary architectures and urban projects in generating new landscapes. And I stressed it in the revision step.

 

Literature about landscape is really wide and more references should be added

As asked by the guest editor and another reviewer, I added a “literature review” chapter, concerning the link between landscape, architecture and urban design. I hope now it is clearer the path on which the research walks.

 

Conclusions are superficial and still rough. […]

Chapter “Conclusions” was integrated and reworded. The conclusion now makes clearer the link between the original filing project commissioned by the MIC and the design of more articulated research on the value of contemporary architecture and urbanism in the generation process of new and dynamic landscapes in which we live every day, and which present and future communities will generate, with inevitably new approaches to sustainable development.

 

 

As you may guess, the rewording and enriching work produced an improvement in the bibliographic references, now more articulated and consistent.

 

Thank you for your time in revising my paper and I hope the revision has matched all your suggestions.

 

Best regards,

 

 

 

 

The Author

Daniele Ronsivalle

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The subject of this paper is extremely important from a social and tourist point of view. His approach is an interesting one, however, from the analysis of the text it is not very clear what is the purpose of the research, what are the working hypotheses from which the present approach started, what is the situation in the specialized literature regarding similar themes and topics and what is the element of novelty that it brings, etc.

However, to improve the present study I recommend:

- Abstract rewording - should provide succinct information about the context, purpose of the article, research methodology used, results and conclusions obtained;

- Improvement of the chapter "1. Introduction” by inserting information on: establishing the research hypotheses from which the study started and the research questions the approach is expected to answer; the establishment/reformulation of the research objective, to be clearer; the situation in the specialized literature on similar topics and what is the element of novelty that it brings, etc.

- In chapter ”3. Results”, please explain the results obtained in close correlation with the applied methodology;

- Chapter ”4. Discussions” should be rewritten highlighting the similarities and differences between the results obtained in the present study and other similar studies;

- The ”5. Conclusions” must be expanded, in correlation with the objective of the study and the hypotheses of the research.

- The bibliographic reference list should be improved;

Considering the topicality of the research, the methodology used, I support the publication of the article titled "Relevance and role of contemporary architecture preservation. Assessing and evaluating architectural heritage as a contemporary landscape for inhabitants and tourists. A study case in Southern Italy", after making the necessary changes, including those required by the journal's requirements.

 

Good luck!

Author Response

Esteemed Colleague,

Thank you so much. I really appreciate your comments in helping the improvement of the paper. I reply point by point to your suggestions adding and/or modifying the previous version of the article.

 

Abstract rewording - should provide succinct information about the context, purpose of the article, research methodology used, results and conclusions obtained.

It was extensively reformulated as a result of the review. Your suggestion was fully put in place.

 

 

Improvement of the chapter "1. Introduction” by inserting information on: establishing the research hypotheses from which the study started and the research questions the approach is expected to answer; the establishment/reformulation of the research objective, to be clearer; the situation in the specialized literature on similar topics and what is the element of novelty that it brings, etc.

In the Introduction, I clarified the hypothesis and reformulated the research objective in front of the simple filing activity requested by the Ministry.

As asked by the guest editor and another reviewer, I added a “literature review” chapter, concerning the link between landscape, architecture and urban design. I hope now it is clearer the path on which the research walks.

 

 

In chapter ”3. Results”, please explain the results obtained in close correlation with the applied methodology.

I have inserted a more detailed explanation of the selection method of the architectures and urban projects and a new paragraph in “results” to link the “methodology” and the “Results” paragraphs. There was really a gap between methods and results. I hope you agree with this solution.

 

 

Chapter ”4. Discussions” should be rewritten highlighting the similarities and differences between the results obtained in the present study and other similar studies.

Chapter “Discussion” was enriched, explaining the specificity of the results, and considering the common approach on the issue, comparing with other institutional projects and catalogues, underlining and stressing the innovative aspect of the research, in front of heritage and preservation studies.

 

 

The “5. Conclusions” must be expanded, in correlation with the objective of the study and the hypotheses of the research.

Chapter “Conclusions” was integrated and reworded. The conclusion now makes clearer the link between the original filing project commissioned by the MIC and the design of more articulated research on the value of contemporary architecture and urbanism in the generation process of new and dynamic landscapes in which we live every day, and which present and future communities will generate, with inevitably new approaches to sustainable development.

 

The bibliographic reference list should be improved

As you may guess, the rewording and enriching work produced an improvement in the bibliographic references, now more articulated and consistent.

 

Thank you for your time in revising my paper and I hope the revision has matched all your suggestions.

 

Best regards,

 

 

 

 

The Author

Daniele Ronsivalle

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

1.The paper deals with a relevant topic. The research has very clear applied character. The research solves the problem how contemporary architecture should be offered for the comprehension and enjoyment of habitants and tourists. The research is based on the Italian examples. 

2.The content should be better contextualized by appealing to the recent models and theories analyzed in scientific literature. As a result, the references should be added, too.

3.The paper should be extended by the scientific problems of sustainability.

4.The discussions and conclusions should be extended by appealing to the models and theories in the fields of heritage, preservation and tourism studies.

Author Response

Esteemed Colleague,

Thank you so much. I really appreciate your comments in helping the improvement of the paper. I reply point by point to your suggestions adding and/or modifying the previous version of the article.

 

1. The paper deals with a relevant topic. The research has very clear applied character. The research solves the problem how contemporary architecture should be offered for the comprehension and enjoyment of habitants and tourists. The research is based on the Italian examples.

Thank you so much for your positive comment. About the examples: we are not the only nation that protects contemporary buildings across the world, but we need to compare and assess the goal of that cataloguing. And the issue is here: why, what, and in what way does it make sense to protect Modernism?

 

2. The content should be better contextualized by appealing to the recent models and theories analyzed in scientific literature. As a result, the references should be added, too.

To reply to your suggestion and meet the similar proposed by another reviewer, I worked on “intro” chapter and wrote a new paragraph “literature review”, moving some similar parts from “materials and methods”.

In the Introduction, I clarified the hypothesis and reformulated the objective of the research in front of the cataloguing activity requested by the Ministry.

 

As asked by the guest editor and another reviewer, I added a “literature review” chapter, concerning the link between landscape, architecture and urban design. I hope now it is clearer the path on which the research walks.

 

3. The paper should be extended by the scientific problems of sustainability.

The issue was declared in the “literature review” and I underlined that landscape as a whole concept is not cited in either in Bruntland Report or in Agenda 2030. UNESCO and CoE have enlightened the cultural relevance of landscape.

Whilst it is relevant the cultural positions of many authors, from Quaroni to Mostafavi&Doherty and Hodson&Marvin about the relevance of contemporary architectures and urban projects in generating new landscapes. And I stressed it in the revision step.

 

4. The discussions and conclusions should be extended by appealing to the models and theories in the fields of heritage, preservation and tourism studies.

Chapter “Discussion” was enriched. The chapter explains the specificity of the results, and considering the common approach to the issue, comparing it with other institutional projects and catalogues, underlining and stressing the innovative aspect of the research, in front of heritage and preservation studies.

Chapter “Conclusions” was integrated and reworded. The conclusion now makes clearer the link between the original filing project commissioned by the MIC and the design of more articulated research on the value of contemporary architecture and urbanism in the generation process of new and dynamic landscapes in which we live every day and which present and future communities will generate, with inevitably new approaches to sustainable development.

 

 

 

Thank you for your time in revising my paper and I hope the revision has matched all your suggestions.

 

Best regards,

 

 

 

 

The Author

Daniele Ronsivalle

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

I have appreciated your efforts to improve the scientific soundness of your manuscript and want to thank you for your detailed reply. There is still a couple of minor issues:

- The manuscript may need a further minor check of the English language (i.e. I would suggest to avoid short forms such as hasn't). See in particular lines 592-602

- since the topic of tourism is not addressed throughout the paper I would suggest to eliminate "for inhabitants and tourists" from the title.

Best regards

Author Response

Esteemed Colleague,

Thank you so much. I really appreciate your last comments in evaluating and contributing to the improvement of my work.

 

I revised the colloquial negative forms. Thank you for these effective suggestions: it’s not obvious your attention even on these little things!

 

I revised the final paragraph in the “discussion” chapter. A simple but effective rewording to clarify and avoid the “Itanglish” effect.

 

 

About the title: when I submitted the revised version, I checked for the possibility of changing the title. I recognized it is not fully-consistence. Now I changed the title in the new version of the manuscript, and I am contacting the editorial office to communicate the change.

 

Thank you for your time in revising my paper and I hope the revision has matched all your suggestions.

 

Best regards,

 

 

 

 

The Author

Daniele Ronsivalle

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

After the revisions, the paper is much better. However, I still recommend to conceptualize better the introduction by adding the theoretical models presented in the recent literature.  

Author Response

Esteemed Colleague,

Thank you so much. I really appreciate your last comments in evaluating and contributing to the improvement of my work.

 

I revised the colloquial negative forms. Thank you for these effective suggestions: it’s not obvious your attention even on these little things!

 

I revised the final paragraph in the “discussion” chapter. A simple but effective rewording to clarify and avoid the “Itanglish” effect.

 

 

About the title: when I submitted the revised version, I checked for the possibility of changing the title. I recognized it is not fully-consistence. Now I changed the title in the new version of the manuscript, and I am contacting the editorial office to communicate the change.

 

Thank you for your time in revising my paper and I hope the revision has matched all your suggestions.

 

Best regards,

 

 

 

 

The Author

Daniele Ronsivalle

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf