Composing the Landscape: Analyzing Landscape Architecture as Design Formation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author,

From your manuscript, it can be assessed that you have years of teaching experience behind you, which should be highly appreciated. However, the structure of your manuscript does not meet the requirements of the Land Journal. According to them, a research article should be built of Introduction, Materials & Methods, Results, Discussion and Conclusion sections. It should also contain “a substantial amount of new information”. Please kindly refer to the Instructions for Authors section of the Journal website: https://www.mdpi.com/journal/land/instructions for more information.

The abstract should inform about the research background, methodology, results, and conclusions. 

The presentation of the research background (Introduction) should be richer, given the breadth of the selected topic. Of course, it is impossible to cover all knowledge related to landscape composition, but essentials (e.g., pattern language, Gestalt, landscape composition analyses) should find their place in the Introduction. A usual article considered by the Land Journal has about 70 references.

The Materials and Methods section is missing. High-scoring scientific journals like Land requires the methodology to be precisely described. Let it be research-by-design, formal analysis, for example, they must be named and described precisely.

The results: what are the research results? 

An additional remark is that the two projects presented do not show the existing state of the space (the inventory). The reader is, therefore, unable to assess the impact of the project (positive or negative?)

The Discussion section, where the results should be confronted with the present state of knowledge, is also missing. It would be interesting, however, to see how the presented projects would defend themselves against the current pro-ecological landscape design paradigm. What is the Green Area Ratio? How do the projects respond to the requirements of sustainable development?

The Conclusions section is not supported by the text. It follows with a philosophical analysis based on literature.

To summarize, the manuscript has undeniable value distributed into two categories: didactics and philosophical approach to landscape (garden) design. However, it is not a research article in the proper meaning.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

In general, the use of English is correct. Some sentences are long and complicated.

Author Response

Dear unknown reviewer,

I have to agree that your comments were rather invigorating.

Nevertheelss, I strongly believe that THIS IS A RESEARCH ARTICLE - presemting and supporting an extended reserarch on didactic methodology, in correlation to theoretical proposals. My article describes a research, correlating theoretical refernces, historic references and didactivc academical design parctice.

I send back my article – changes are indicated in red color.

Best Regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The structure of the work is completely different from the structure of a typical article. There is no research hypothesis, no research methodology and no results achieved. This is a type of polemical, debatable article, strongly referring to the philosophy of architecture.

In the abstract, the author indicates that "the article principally refers to the analysis of the vegetal formations of landscape design, to a methodology of composing 'green-scape' in correlation to the totality of the natural or artificial place substratum, in natural or urban context ". Therefore, I would expect a much broader review of the literature on the broadly understood role of vegetation in the landscape. Secondly, different expressive paradigms of landscape design are discussed very briefly. Both of the above-mentioned issues constitute the basis for the description of theoretical proposals and the design methodology implemented by the author. It is necessary to clearly formulate "allegations" regarding the applied paradigms of landscape design in order to then clearly indicate the differences in the approach proposed by the author and the superiority of his solutions.

Survey research would be very interesting to assess the reception by users of public spaces of the design solutions proposed by the author based on the proposed design methodology. Subjective assessments of the landscape values of the designed places, due to their mass nature, would provide an objective assessment.

 

Editorial notes:

Section 4.1 applies to non-Western cultures, and Section 3 applies only to Western cultures. Shouldn't section 4.1 be a subsection of chapter 3? It seems to me that such an arrangement would be more logical.

Two chapters have the same number - 5.

Author Response

Dear unknown reviewer,

I have to agree that your comments were rather invigorating. I send back my article – changes are indicated in red color.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Very interesting paper on design formations in landscape architecture, with clearly stated author's opinion on proper methodology in designing green spaces. The research text is full of great ilustrations, that further clarify the topic of the paper.

Author Response

First of all, I should like to thank you for your comments. Nevertheless I have made some additions and minor alterations to my text. I send back the final presentation of my article – changes are indicated in red color.

Best Regards

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a conceptual discussion of vegetation landscape design using historical landscape design concepts. This is not research and does not contribute to the landscape architecture knowledge base to landscape education pedagogy. The paper needs a research objective, some type of analysis and results.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English language use is Ok but a bit obtuse at times.

Author Response

Dear unknown reviewer,

I have to agree that your comments were rather invigorating. I send back my article – changes are indicated in red color

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been supplemented with a description of the methodology, which was a major concern. Still, the paper is not a typical research work. Nonetheless, it has an overall merit by covering didactic aspects of landscape shaping.

Author Response

Dear reviewer - thank you for your comments. I send you the last version of my article - the additional is written in red colour.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please expand the literature review regarding the broadly understood role of vegetation in the landscape. I recommended this in a previous review.

Author Response

I have tried to respond to your suggestion about teh role of vegetation in landscape design - nevertheless, waht is even more important for my own point of viwe is the way vegatation species are tarnsformed to 'compositional' deign elements. Regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The review article is much improved. I can now follow the review progression within the text.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English usage if fine but needs minor edits especially singular versus plural and verb usage.

Author Response

Dear reviewer - thank you for your kind comment. I send you the last version of my article, teh new additional part is written in red colour.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx