Public Space Planning in Urban Resettlement Community in China: Addressing Diverse Needs of Rural Migrants through Function Programming Based on Architectural Planning Theory

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The subject is relevant and interesting. The structure of the model is clear, easy to construct and well described. The argumentation and methodology in the paper is convincing. I much like the scientific and logical layout and flow of this paper leading to the conclusions. The nature of this paper was such that it needs to be understandable and accessible both to academic audiences and policymakers.  Therefore, I suggest that this manuscript can re accepted after minor revisions.

Minor Remarks:

1.  Line 16: (Appendix A) can be deleted.

2. In Figure 1, the double arrow should be corrected to a single arrow.

3. Add a description of the data source, sample size, etc.

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you for inviting me to review the paper titled “Public Space Planning in Urban Resettlement Community: Addressing Diverse Needs of Rural Migrants through Function Programming based on Architectural Planning Theory.” Overall, the paper provides valuable insights into public space planning for rural immigrants settling in urban resettlement community. The research paper is well-written and clearly outlines its objectives, research field, and methodology. However, the discussion would benefit from a comparison of current results with those of previous studies. Referencing past research in the field and current research would strengthen the author's argument. The authors acknowledge the limitations of the min-max method but could improve the conclusion by discussing future research that can overcome these limitations challenges.

 

Major comments:

1. It is essential to indicate whether this research is founded on previously an expanded research by the authors or based on a research for another authors. 
2. In order to better present the research design, it would be helpful to include a diagram in the introduction that outlines the stages and steps involved. This diagram should depict the sub-objectives, research methods, results, and appendices.
3. It is preferable to write the results section as it is without comment and to put comments in the discussion section with references that agree or disagree with the result. An example is what came in this paragraph "A resettlement community generally contains various types of migrants. Therefore, when implementing function programming for a single type of migrant in the public space planning of the resettlement community, the overall functional programming framework should be organized based on actual types of migrants." 
4. Where is the proposal by defining “elastic design strategies,” as stated in the abstract,
5. Does this study suggest a scientific approach to transform needs into functional programming, or does it present a method for extracting function modules by permuting different types of migrants.
6. Where is Appendix B in the text.
7. Page 5, Lines 176-181 seems more like a result than a research method, and therefore it is preferable to write it here as a step for research and transfer the discovery or conclusion to the results chapter. This misleading is repeated in lines 196-198.
8. Numerous spelling errors need to be reviewed for this research.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This study is correct. The goal of the research is formulated well. The literature background, the methodology and the findings are also well. Interesting is the use of architectural planning theory in a problem of public space planning. I like the typification used in the production and living needs model framework. Materials added in the appendices create a strong part of this paper.

The mean problem is the limitation of the topics to one country only. A comparison of the results obtained in China with similar findings from other countries would develop the scientific soundness of this research. So. I think, that in the present form, this manuscript has a limited effect. Especially by publication in the international, scientific journal.

Assuming the publication of this study in the present form, the aspect of this limitation should be highlighted more distinctly. Significantly, the title of the paper should show this limitation with the addition of the words “in China” (Public Space Planning in Urban Resettlement Community in China: Addressing Diverse Needs of Rural Migrants through Function Programming based on Architectural Planning Theory).

In a similar way, specific sentences should be added in the summary, introduction, discussion and conclusion.

I give also some smaller, technical problems.

1. The tables and figures are indicated with (Source: Author), but the manuscript has more Authors. Are these tables or figures prepared by one specific Author (which one?) or are they made by all of the Authors?

 

2. The list of references contains two positions in which the explanation is presented in not understandable form (perhaps in Japanese writing). Please, present it in English.

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Please, check the attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

In general, the language editing is good. Some complexity on the terminology to determine groups/typologies could be simpler. Very few remarks on other terms and specified in the remarks file. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

The article has undergone significant improvements compared to its initial version. I would like to thank the authors for their remarkable efforts in enhancing the manuscript. The changes were meaningful and well-thought-out, resulting in a much clearer and more comprehensive article. I am sure that the readers of this revised version will find it highly informative and useful.

Reviewer 3 Report

I can state that the Authors satisfactorily considered all of my remarks. Significantly, the aspect of the limitation of the study to one country only was more distinctly highlighted and motivated well. The smaller, technical problems were also solved. Now, the paper is clearer and more appropriate for the “Land” journal topics, so I recommend publishing it. I hope, that the Authors will develop their cases in the future including the comparisons of public space planning studies worldwide around.