Potential of Former Mill Race Corridors for Urban Regeneration Strategies—A Case Study from Podolínec in Prešov Region (Slovakia)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study proposes the potential of the former mill race corridors in an urban revitalization strategy through historical maps and an analysis of the current situation. In sum, this is an interesting study, and these results this are very significant for the work of combining historical research with landscape design practice. The reading prior to subsection 3.3 is enjoyable, however the later design section appears abruptly and confused.

The overall conceptualization of the study is acceptable, with subsection 3.1 identifying these channels from historical documents, and subsection 3.2 surveying and analyzing the current state of the mill races corridors in the current urban fabric. By subsection 3.3, the authors want to redesign and revitalize the landscape of these historic channel corridors, which is a very interesting idea. However, before proceeding with these designs, the authors should have added a research and analysis subsection (for example, what is the current state of use and expectations/needs for use of these areas by the local government/community? Or, some analyses and references of similar cases in other countries/regions) to show how the authors based their design derivations on the above base data, otherwise the presentation of the design results is unsupported. In other words, how did the authors think about and load these design guidelines and criteria into these environments? If there is no design derivation section, then the reader can find out that the designers can still give these design solutions even without conducting the surveys and studies in sections 3.1 and 3.2.

 

In addition, a number of other issues need to be addressed:

Point 1 Paragraphs are too fragmented, and many fragmented paragraphs could be combined in a single paragraph, such as the first four paragraphs of the Introduction, subsections 2.2.3 and 3.1.

Point 2 Due to the number of images in this manuscript, Figure 2 can be considered for deletion as it has been mentioned in its entirety at the beginning of subsection 2.2.

Point 3 In subsection 2.2.3, it would have been better if the authors had provided some theoretical basis for these assumptions.

Point 4 What do the yellow dots in Figure 7 represent? It should be annotated.

Point 5 The current discussion section is insufficient, and the authors could add some discussion of the theoretical part, such as the implication and reference value of the methodology of this study for other similar studies. In addition, the shortcomings of this study and potential directions for future research.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

none

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Thank you for the opportunity to review the paper. The article is not only interesting, but it also has the potential to make a significant contribution to the field. The researched problem has scientific potential and may be of great interest to potential readers. The study aims to explore the potential of former mill race corridors to contribute to contemporary urban regeneration strategies through its revitalization, strengthening the blue and green infrastructure in this way.

The abstract is consistent and well-designed. The introduction, which includes a literature review, is relevant and theory-based. It provides a comprehensive overview of existing research in the field. The methods are appropriate. The results were clearly presented.

What should be further elaborated is the discussion, concerning the obtained results. In its current form, the discussion is very generalized and does not sufficiently rely on research results. I believe that by taking a closer look at the results that the authors reached and drawing conclusions based on them, the discussion could be significantly strengthened.

The conclusion should list the study's practical implications, shortcomings, and limitations, along with indications for future research. Furthermore, the paper's theoretical and practical contribution must be clearly highlighted.

Regarding specific comments referring to line numbers, the paragraph from line 87 to line 100 has no citations.

Line 177 contains repeated text.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript would benefit from professional language editing.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have substantially revised the manuscript in response to my comments, and the current design idea is explained and adequately discussed for this study; the diagrams have been corrected, and some minor linguistic issues have been improved. I therefore support the publication of the current version.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,
The manuscript has been significantly improved, and you made a great effort to correct the previous version of the paper. All technical deficiencies have been corrected, and the discussion and conclusion have been significantly expanded. Thank you for considering my suggestions. I propose to publish the paper.