Landscape-Based Transformation of Young Industrial Landscapes
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is a well-written and structured paper. The subject, aims and method are clearly explained and the topic is relevant to readers of this journal. The paper's contribution to scholarship is a literature survey and brief analysis of several case studies located in Northern Europe. Through analysis of this literature and these built examples, the authors derive a set of strategies for the transformation of 'Young Industrial Landscapes' (YILs).
There are three main areas in which the paper can be improved:
(1) Definition of YILs. The category of the YIL needs to be more thoroughly defined. Why is the type defined as being built in the period 1930s to 1980s? What happened in that period to produce these landscapes? What spatial, material and geographical qualities do they share? What are the industries involved, and why are they no longer operative? Most importantly, are YILs really an "omnipresent phenomena" [p.20, line 811]. This statement implies they exist as part of urban landscapes across the globe. Or do the authors mean that the YIL is "omnipresent" in Northern Europe and North America? If so, this would explain limiting the scope of the literature survey and the examples to those geographic areas (using Landzine to select examples; but why no North American case studies?).
(2) Goal of transformation of YILs. While the paper aims to distil a set of strategies for the transformation of YILs, the paper doesn't yet fully explain the goal of that transformation. Throughout, various goals are discussed, including heritage preservation, new functionality, increase of sociability and recreation, mitigation of climate change problems, increased biodiversity, enhanced sustainability (interestingly, financial considerations such as real estate development are not considered). The authors imply that these goals are always in sympathy with each other. But what happens when they are not? For example, when 're-naturing' is incompatible with increased human occupation? What about the case when the preservation of industrial heritage features is incompatible with sustainability (because of toxicity, for example)? The paper would be improved if the authors focused on one or two specific goals of transformation, or at least provide a more nuanced discussion of possible conflicts between different goals.
(3) Acknowledgement of geographic/cultural context. As mentioned in (1), the unstated 'site' of this study is Northern Europe and North America. This must be stated in the Abstract and clearly foregrounded in the Introduction. Throughout the paper, the landscape, culture, climate, and even industries of these geographic regions are assumed to be the norm, and there is no recognition of other environments, cultures, or urban contexts in which YILs might (do?) exist. This leads to the question, how widely applicable are the strategies discussed? The paper concludes: "The variety of cases in which we found these design strategies active, promises a broad range of generalisability and transferability of the results" [p.20, line 835-6]. But how generalisable and transferable are they? Could the same research strategy be used to analyse literature and examples from Asia or the global south, for example? If so, how might the strategies differ?
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This is by and large a well written paper addressing as interesting and timely topic. The empirical material is solid and rich. However, I have two concerns: The first one relates to the step-wise logic of the data, while the second has to do with the theory section and how it informs/guides the study.
First on the empirical logic: A state-of-the-art literature review and a screening of relevant projects has led to the identification of four approaches to transformation, landscape and site features (as stated line 154-156): porosity, reuse, re-naturing, and open-endedness. This is at least how I read the text. But these four approaches are at the same time what is recommended for future - as said in the abstract they are 'a set of qualifying strategies to guide future landscapes-based transformations'. This causes some unclarity: If the four approaches can be seen as descriptive categories from the first two steps, how are they also recommended qualifying strategies? The confusion is increased further when the case study step is presented. Here these four approaches are part of the selection criteria for selection of cases together with original transformation site and type of transformation, scale, geography and location, and type of plan. I do follow the outline of the criteria for case selection, but I do not follow how the four approaches of porosity, reuse, re-naturing and open-endedness have different 'status' throughout this study. If they were already identified in the screening what did the 5 cases bring to the table of new insight? A minor unclarity has to do with the identification of the 5 cases: Are they selected from all projects/cases in the screening or have they been identified through some other process?
Then to the theory issue: Section 3 is interesting as it draws up some lines of development and interesting concepts. However, the perspectives from this section should be better integrated in the Discussion and Conclusion. As I read the text some elements from the theory section is implicit in the Discussion but it should be spelled out more clearly just to make sure that the Discussion is theoretically informed.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
- Foremost, I am not able to find a clear research question in the first section of introduction. The first paragraph is confusing. The authors discussed the importance of YILs transformation, but failed to highlight the issue they aim to address. In the following two paragraphs, they moved directly to their empirical case, which might be hard-to-follow for potential readers without local knowledge. The following subsection 1.1 makes sense. The authors are therefore suggested to reorganize the introduction.
- Without clear research questions, the literature review seems unfocused with no purposes. I am puzzled by the case study for the same reason.
- Regarding the definition, what are the difference between YILs and older industrial areas (line 34)? Can they be distinguished according to time or location? In line 37, the authors argued YILs as ‘the suburbs, dating roughly from the mid‐20th century to the 1980s’; While in line 78, the argue ‘dating roughly from the 1930s to the 1980s’.
- Another confusing notion is the difference between ‘transformation’ and ‘reuse’. In lines 43-44, the authors argued that ‘the transformation of YILs can do more than reuse the areas’. These two concepts are to some extent the same or ‘one contains the other’. The same question goes to ‘redevelopment’ (line 75) and others.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript has been improved as regards the issues pointed out by this reviewer in the first review round. Even if the step-wise logic of the empirical material is better explained in the revised version, I am not sure how the added elaborations on Danish YILs/the Copenhagen situation fits into the picture. My advise would be to leave out the description of Copenhagen as inserted from line 75 and onwards, or, if kept, it should be made crystal clear to the reader that Hersted as one of the five cases have a different role than the 4 others due to the authors specific knowledge (I guess this is what is meant since one of the references is to the author/-s - but this is unclear). When stating line 75 that 'The article draws on previous studies of Danish YILs, which will serve to exemplify YILs development and current situation' adds to the empirical complexity I pointed out in my first review report. Further, I do not really see how the authors' (presumably) specific knowledge on greater Cph/Hersted is integrated on the results and discussion sections - which is by and large as before.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
