Exploring Characteristics and Patterns of In Situ Space Morphology: Perspective of the Historical and Cultural Canal Settlement

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is well structured and it presents a thoroughly elaborated morphological analysis of the selected historical area. The applied methods are related to the chosen list of criteria. However, the main aim of the conducted study is not adequately explained, as well as the applicability of the results - both in theory and practice.

I would suggest the allocation of the article into another journal focused exclusively on urban morphology or a significant modification of the content which would emphasise the link with the journal Land - for ex.:

a) considering the relation between detected morphological characteristics and the established spatial typologies with the possible socio-spatial-functional transformation/preservation/modification/regeneration of the area,

b) the significance and role of findings for the future process of planning and urban/architectural design,

c) inclusion of the results into the legislative documents and building codes,

d) the influence of the detected findings to land use, the value of the construction land in the area or its proximity or the value  of available properties/real estates... etc.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your valuable comments. According to your comments, we have made a point-by-point response to each comment. The related contents of our manuscript have been revised carefully.

Please download the Word file in the attachment.

Best regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study delves into the structure of Yangliuqing Town, a historic and culturally rich community situated along China's Grand Canal, an area that has yet to receive much scholarly attention. While the paper offers insights into Yangliuqing Town, it needs to discuss how these insights can be applied to other canal settlements worldwide or similar environments (emphasize more on recommendations).

 

The study conducted a quantitative analysis using UAV 3D modeling and Space syntax techniques. This enhanced the understanding of complex ideas related to settlement layouts with compelling visual aids and detailed graphs.

 

Here are minor comments:

Lines 60-64: In the introduction, mention the gap in research and explain how this study aims to fill it. The current description is broad and could benefit from more specific details regarding the distinctive contributions of this research.

 

Lines 213-230: In the methodology section, it is crucial to explain the selected methods and justify why they are best suited for this study. The current description needs more depth and detail, which may leave readers with VGA and Space syntax seeking further clarification.

 

Line 343: Figures 9 and 10 are excellent but very condensed. I suggest redeveloping the graphs and giving space between the different drawings for readability. Content-wise, they are very informative. Align them vertically for more space, as the width is already fixed. This will significantly improve the overall quality of the figures.

 

Lines 682-683: The discussion should expand on how the findings can impact policies, educational practices, and societal views on preserving heritage. It's important to note that the current focus is quite limited to the study area, which is accurate.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your valuable comments. According to your comments, we have made a point-by-point response to each comment. The related contents of our manuscript have been revised carefully.

Please download the Word file in the attachment.

Best regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors have certainly carried out a very vast research work that clearly could be divided to various sections. Due to this, I consider that there is too much material compacted in one and only manuscript. There are information at least for two or three manuscripts with different foci: architectural-environmental conservation in the site and its importance as a tourist (national/international) attraction; the meaning of historical residencial architecture in the reinforcement of the habitability/local identity in the the contemporary housing projects and town planning; urban space, local identity, habitability and liveability. Next, I'll highlight some important points:

1) As there is so much information, finally, at the Discussion/ Conclusion  sections, there are no clear recomendations given regarding planning/design guidelines (though the planning strategies and policy are mentioned in the introductions. This is especially important, as authors mentions the rapid urbanization of China and its impact on the sustainable development of cultural heritage.

2) Understanding the morphology here in three different scales/layers is important for the habitability: urban, architectural, and interior decoration. To link this to environmental psychology would give a new research line that would provide interesant results regarding the development/improvement of situated habitability. Thus, material for another, separated manuscript.

3) Correspondingly, I would consider more also the daily life of the local citizens to be included to the analysis comparing the aqcuired results with the user-centered information. The tourists and tourism are more mentioned here than the local habitants, although the latter are finally the more needed for sustainable development and reinforcement of the local identity.

4) The Introduction section mention topics such as local climate and environment, local traditional wisdom, confort level and climatic conditions of traditional dwellings-modern design, physics, nature and culture, adaptation of traditional architecture to the natural ecology. All are very relevant issues, indeed. Though, finally, the manuscript does not work those areas in any its results although it could. Please, do it! The morphological analysis of the traditional architecture you have made, could give intresenting guidelines to the future urban planning and architectural design regarding environmental sustainability.

5) You mention in the introduction that the results are to be used for solving the deficiences of local characteristics of the canal settlements. Though, more clear guidelines/recommendatins would be needed. 

6) In the 3.2 section you mention: "The research result provided new thinking for understanding the architectural form, functions and in-situ characteristics of the canal settlements and scientific basis for their conservation and renovation". But, you don't explain how or why. 

6) In the Discussion section you mention the following: "Historical and cultural resources are the core elements of guidance and control of the in-situ characteristics of the street space of the canal settlements, reflecting the traditional society, the cultural deposits and the epitome of life of the canal settlements". Indeed, that is true. Now, you have not explained, how the residential and urban spaces reflect the traditional society. Do they reflect the current society? Is there a conflict to attend between the traditional and contemporary morphological narratives? Could the contemporary urban design reinforce/recover characteristics of the traditional morphology to improve the habitability, leveability or sustainability?

7) You still present more information (photos, schemes) in the Discussion section that really should be in the Results section.

8) Conclusion section does not give too much, it is only a brief description of the morphology explained in the manuscript.

As a conclusion, this has been a very ambitios project that has requiered a lot of work. But, as I mentioned before, make a critical division of your material to several blocks, and use them for a couple of clearly focused articles. Widen the impact of your results conecting the morphological information with environmental, psicological, urban policy, conservational, etc. research.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your valuable comments. According to your comments, we have made a point-by-point response to each comment. The related contents of our manuscript have been revised carefully.

Please download the Word file in the attachment.

Best regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article has been improved significantly and all the requested revisions have been made.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your valuable comments. According to your comments, we have made a point-by-point response to each comment. The related contents of our manuscript have been revised carefully.

Please download the Word file of the response in the attachment.

Best regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank You for the careful revision made to the manuscript and the modifications carried out. I have still a couple of recommendations:

1) The 4. Discussion-section is too long. The subsections from 4.1.1 to 4.1.3, from my point of view, should be part of the 2.1 Overview, as the describe the historical development of the study area. This way, the subsections from 4.1.4 onwards are really focused on the discussion and recommendations. 

2) The current subsections from 4.1.1 to 4.1.3 could begin with some connective sentences to link them better to the previous and posterior information.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your valuable comments. According to your comments, we have made a point-by-point response to each comment. The related contents of our manuscript have been revised carefully.

Please download the Word file of the response in the attachment.

Best regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf