The Guidance of Public Value in China’s Historic Environment: Research on Regeneration Strategies Using Taiyuan’s Bell Tower Street as an Example

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This research timely deals with a significant topic and valuable case, which is very good. The text is well-contextualized with a clear flow, and the author argues seriously. However, some vital points need to be considered.

 

Point 1: the author firmly claimed that Taiyuan Bell Tower Street is a successful regeneration case (line 51,59, 60), without providing any evidence. Why is it successful, and in what aspects? More supporting information and data are needed, especially for those unfamiliar with the site.

 

Point 2: a clarification of the methodology used in this paper is needed.

 

 

 

Point 3: most important point: The author argued that “This study provides two contributions to literatures.” I would say indeed, the paper establishes a theoretical framework from the perspective of public value in the paper, but unfortunately, it fails to “provide a detailed analysis of the regeneration of Taiyuan's Bell Tower district”, from my understanding. In section 5, the text is mostly descriptive: history process, existing situation, policy. It lacks the critical content. As a reader I am expecting the paper to discuss how accessibility, mobility, space composition…contribute to public value and, further, society and locals. You need to interpret these indicators, not just present them. This would also help you answer the question: Why is the street successful? 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English writing is clear and fluent. Just some minor mistakes were detected, like lines 95-98. 

Author Response

Comment 1: the author firmly claimed that Taiyuan Bell Tower Street is a successful regeneration case (line 51,59, 60), without providing any evidence. Why is it successful, and in what aspects? More supporting information and data are needed, especially for those unfamiliar with the site.

Response1: Thanks to the reviewer for the reminder. It is indeed inappropriate to use a subjective term like "successful" in an academic article. I have changed lines 51 to 60 in the original manuscript to “Taiyuan, a lower-tier second-level city in China with a per capita GDP of $11,000 in 2022, has an underdeveloped tertiary and tourism economy. Since 2014, the city has planned to regenerate its historic Bell Tower Street. Despite initial difficulties with developers who found potential losses in the project, the municipality adopted a public value-oriented approach. Completed in 2021, the regeneration received positive feedback from various sectors (lines 63 -68).

Furthermore, in the added section 5 discussion, the article shows more supporting information and discussion from the aspects of “ accessibility and recentralization, mobility and economic effect, restoration measures and social value, contributions to the society and locals”(lines 599-631).

 

Comment 2: a clarification of the methodology used in this paper is needed.

Response 2: We acknowledge the need for clarification. In response, we have included Section 3, “Methodology," to elucidate the research methodologies employed in our study. This section now involves a mixed-methods approach, conducted in three phases: (1) Project Preparation Stage (2014-2017), where planning documents and meeting minutes were reviewed; (2) Project Implementation Stage (2020-2021), which included semi-structured interviews with key project members and field observations; and (3) Project Completion Stage (2021-Present), involving on-site investigations, stakeholder interviews, and analysis of statistical data and planning documents. We trust that these additions adequately address your concerns. （see lines 183-296 in the manuscript）

 

Comment 3: most important point: The author argued that “This study provides two contributions to literatures.” I would say indeed, the paper establishes a theoretical framework from the perspective of public value in the paper, but unfortunately, it fails to “provide a detailed analysis of the regeneration of Taiyuan's Bell Tower district”, from my understanding. In section 5, the text is mostly descriptive: history process, existing situation, policy. It lacks the critical content. As a reader I am expecting the paper to discuss how accessibility, mobility, space composition…contribute to public value and, further, society and locals. You need to interpret these indicators, not just present them. This would also help you answer the question: Why is the street successful?

Response 3:  Thank you for your valuable feedback. We understand that the descriptive nature of Section 5 might not have fully addressed the critical analysis expected. We have revised Section 5 to include a more detailed interpretation of key indicators such as accessibility, mobility, and space composition, and how these contribute to public value and benefit society and locals. Specifically, we have discussed how these factors enhance social interactions, economic vitality, and community cohesion, thereby explaining why the regeneration of Bell Tower Street is considered successful.( see lines 599-631 in the manuscript)

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors propose an interesting case study about Taiyuan Bell Tower Street in the manuscript.

However, it has significant flaws, including:

1. The authors didn't present their research methods.

2. The authors mention the use of secondary and primary sources, literature review, and semi-structured interviews but need to comprehensively describe the 'when,' 'how,' and 'what' of the collected materials, leaving the reader with unanswered questions.

3. They presented the changes in thought and decision-making, but how to make final inferences could have been clearer.

4. The authors expected this research could "serve as a model for other cities seeking similar outcomes," but they didn't propose a transferable inference path.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of English language is good.

Author Response

Comment 1: The authors didn't present their research methods.

Response 1: Thank you for your feedback. We acknowledge this oversight and have addressed it by adding Section 3, "Methodology," to our paper. This section now involves a mixed-methods approach, conducted in three phases: (1) Project Preparation Stage (2014-2017), where planning documents and meeting minutes were reviewed; (2) Project Implementation Stage (2020-2021), which included semi-structured interviews with key project members and field observations; and (3) Project Completion Stage (2021-Present), involving on-site investigations, stakeholder interviews, and analysis of statistical data and planning documents. We believe these additions enhance the clarity and completeness of our research presentation.

Comment 2: The authors mention the use of secondary and primary sources, literature review, and semi-structured interviews but need to comprehensively describe the 'when,' 'how,' and 'what' of the collected materials, leaving the reader with unanswered questions.

Response 2: Thank you for your feedback. We have addressed this concern by providing a detailed description of our data collection process in Section 3 of our paper. Our research unfolded across three distinct phases. The initial phase (2014-2017) focused on project preparation, where we gathered first-hand data from the Taiyuan Urban and Rural Planning Design Institute through meeting minutes and planning documents. The subsequent phase (2020-2021) concentrated on project implementation, involving extensive semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders such as the Director of the Taiyuan Planning Bureau, the President of the Taiyuan Architectural Design Institute, and other project leaders. Finally, the third phase (2021-present) centered on project outcomes, including on-site investigations on Zhonglou Street, interviews with shop owners, staff, customers, and tourists, and the collection of official statistics, planning drawings, news reports, and other pertinent data sources.

 

Comment 3: They presented the changes in thought and decision-making, but how to make final inferences could have been clearer.

Response 3: In lines 497-499, about “how to make final inferences” is explained as “ This came from the year the state allowed national bonds and special loans for the renovation of older neighborhoods”.

Comment 4: The authors expected this research could "serve as a model for other cities seeking similar outcomes," but they didn't propose a transferable inference path.

Response 4: In section 5 discussion, lines 593-631 are added, emphasizing that other cities could use the framework that this research proposes as a tool to to assess and refine their strategies.

This study contributes to the literature in two significant ways: (1) It establishes a theoretical framework from the perspective of public value, other cities could use the framework that this research proposes as a tool to to assess and refine their strategies.  (2) it provides a detailed analysis of the regeneration of Taiyuan's Bell Tower Street. However, to address the reviewer's concerns and enhance the critical analysis, the manuscript interprets the indicators such as accessibility, mobility, and restoration measures and explains how they contribute to public value and benefit society and locals through urban governance.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors are congratulated on their work. The following points are commented on in this regard:

 

a) Substantive

a. The abstract does not present precise information on the methodology used.

b. In the summary, the conclusions can be perfectly understood as starting information; that is to say, the level of generality is exaggerated and does not focus on the object of study and its particular context.

c. It is necessary to include considerations on heritage impact, which were enunciated at least a decade ago by UNESCO, and include relevant aspects of the economy-conservation relationship. The same applies to the case of the historic urban landscape and its particularities.

d. The introduction does not show what is the contribution to knowledge, and in turn, what is the knowledge gap on which the work is based.

e. The approach of section 2 should be reviewed and the contents should be articulated to show the starting points of the research, but above all the progress made.

f. It is important to establish the difference and clear link between the work presented and the theory of values and public value. They may not be the same thing, but they are complementary concepts and dynamics.

g. It is essential to clarify the scope of the concept "public". It has a bearing on the ownership of property, but also on other senses of appropriation of spaces, for example. Based on the concept, it is important to analyse other issues such as governance or social participation.

h. There is a need to broaden the normative and political vision on the subject and case study.

i. Most of the content is descriptive, it is necessary to know what type of article is presented, even so, the typical sections should be evidenced.

j. No methodology is presented.

k. There is no evidence of results.

l. The Discussion must necessarily be separated from Conclusions and developed under its own conceptual dynamics.

m. The bibliographical references must necessarily reflect a broad view of the subject. As it is presented, most of the references are Asian and there is no transcendental content associated with institutions such as UNESCO or others.

 

b) Form

a. The presentation of contents according to the current headings and subheadings is not clear. It is usually simple: Introduction, Methodology, Results and Discussion, Conclusions and References; it should be taken up and applied.

b. The citation format should be revised throughout the document; brackets and parentheses are confused without clarifying the link or difference.

c. The use of numbers and letters to detail the contents of different sections should be reviewed. There is confusion with the identification of headings and subheadings.

d. Revise the citation format of the text identifying the figures.

e. Unify the typeface of figures and tables with the typeface of the text.

f. There are exaggeratedly long paragraphs, i.e. more than 10 lines, which makes it difficult to understand the contents.

g. Leave at least one space between the end of the paragraph and the figures or tables.

h. Adjust the legend or symbols of figures and tables to a more convenient size. It is too large.

i. Figure 5 should be improved in terms of quality of content, overall size and size of typography. Symbology, orientation and scale are also lacking.

j. Gaps in the pages should be avoided. Example, page 8.

k. The use of bold or italics in subheadings should be checked.

l. Avoid using successive subheadings with no or reduced content (3 or 4 lines).

m. Review the format of bibliographical references in order to have all the elements that characterise and differentiate them.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

No apply

Author Response

1) Substantive

Comment a: The abstract does not present precise information on the methodology used.

Response a: Thank you for your feedback. We have revised our abstract to include a clear description of our methodology (lines 24-29). Our study utilizes a comprehensive approach involving literature review, semi-structured interviews, graphical analysis, and field surveys to support our analysis.

Comment b: In the summary, the conclusions can be perfectly understood as starting information; that is to say, the level of generality is exaggerated and does not focus on the object of study and its particular context.

Response b: We have revised the section 6. Conclusion(lines 633-655), which is more directly tied to the case study and emphasizes the specific context and findings related to Taiyuan Bell Tower Street, which should address the reviewer’s concern about the level of generality and focus on the object of study and its particular context.

Comment c: It is necessary to include considerations on heritage impact, which were enunciated at least a decade ago by UNESCO, and include relevant aspects of the economy-conservation relationship. The same applies to the case of the historic urban landscape and its particularities.

Response c: Thank you for your guidance. I have added a literature review on The transformation of heritage values in 2.1, describing the documents of UNESCO in lines 86-94, and heritage impact (lines 104-113).  The economy-conservation relationship was illustrated by lines 95-103.

Comment d: The introduction does not show what is the contribution to knowledge, and in turn, what is the knowledge gap on which the work is based.

Response d: We have revised about the contribution and gap in the introduction line 54-62：Existing studies have provided many meaningful implications for the regeneration of the historic environment, however, there still exists some gaps that remain to be bridged. Firstly, because of the complexity of the historic environment regeneration, the traditional single logic of ‘heritage preservation’ and ‘economic development’ can no longer promote long-term development. There is a need for an integrated sustainable perspective to guide future regeneration efforts. Secondly, to measure the public value of heritage, although a triangle model (Figure 1) adopted by English Heritage organizations is comprehensive, it is still a rough model that needs to be refined when applied in the field of urban planning and heritage protection.

Comment e: The approach of section 2 should be reviewed and the contents should be articulated to show the starting points of the research, but above all the progress made.

Response e:  I have added the starting point of the research(lines 77-81) is “being aware of the shift in perception of heritage values”, and illustrated the added part 2.1 “The transformation of heritage values. The progress of this article is added in lines 146-148, at the end of the literature review of “public value”： Presenting a clearer analytical framework in public value-oriented regeneration of historic districts is what is missing in the current research and is the aim of this study.

Comment f: It is important to establish the difference and clear link between the work presented and the theory of values and public value. They may not be the same thing, but they are complementary concepts and dynamics.

Response f: Thank you for your insightful feedback regarding the differentiation and link between the theory of values and public value. We have revised our manuscript to better articulate these concepts and their interconnections. Specifically, we have added Section 2.1 to trace the evolution of heritage value theory from the early 20th century to the present, highlighting key shifts influenced by significant UNESCO documents.

        Clarification and Linkage

        Section 2.1: Evolution of Heritage Value Theory

In this section, we outline the development of heritage value theory starting from Alois Riegl's seminal work in 1903, which introduced the concept of heritage value. We then discuss major milestones in UNESCO's approach to heritage conservation, including the transition from a focus on individual monuments to a broader landscape perspective, and from tangible to intangible cultural heritage. These shifts underscore the increasingly holistic understanding of heritage value, encompassing both material and immaterial aspects.

        Integration of Public Value

Public value, as we describe in our manuscript, aligns with this evolved understanding of heritage value. Public value theory, which incorporates stakeholder theory, offers a comprehensive framework that goes beyond merely assessing heritage value. It considers the broader benefits generated for the community, including social cohesion, economic vitality, and cultural identity. By doing so, public value encompasses the multifaceted contributions of heritage to society, reflecting the integrative trends highlighted in UNESCO's documents.

        Enhancements to the Manuscript

To clearly establish this connection, we have made the following additions:

        Section 2.1: Traces the historical evolution of heritage value theory, highlighting key contributions and shifts.

        Linkage to Public Value: Explains how public value theory integrates these shifts and provides a more comprehensive framework for assessing the benefits of heritage conservation.

        Revised Discussion: Illustrates how the regeneration of Taiyuan's Bell Tower Street embodies these principles, demonstrating the practical application of public value theory in heritage projects.

 

Comment g:  It is essential to clarify the scope of the concept "public". It has a bearing on the ownership of property, but also on other senses of appropriation of spaces, for example. Based on the concept, it is important to analyse other issues such as governance or social participation.

Response g: We have added the scope of the concept “public realm” at the beginning of 2.2 (lines 120-122): “Frequently entreated in discussions of urban design, the concept of public realm needs to be clarified. It refers to the physical and social spaces that are accessible to the public and are used for communal purposes.” Based on the concept, in 2.4, (lines 176-178), we added: “In China, streets and building facades in historic districts are usually considered the public realm, while the ownership of property is relatively diverse. This makes the issue of urban governance in historic districts particularly complex.”

Comment h: There is a need to broaden the normative and political vision on the subject and case study.

Response h: In section 5 Discussion (lines 587-595), some discussions about “broadening the normative and political vision on the subject and case study” are added.

Comment i: Most of the content is descriptive, it is necessary to know what type of article is presented, even so, the typical sections should be evidenced.

Response i: Thank you for your comments. The structure of the article is improved. We have added Section 3 Methodology including “case study area, materials, the framework for the regeneration.” Most of the analysis is descriptive based on graphics, semi-structured interviews, on-site surveys, and some economic data(For example, in Line 320-339). Some other evidence is added in lines 352-356, 371-373.

Comment j: No methodology is presented.

Response j: Thank you for your comment. We recognize the need for clarity on our methodology. In response, we have incorporated Section 3, "Methodology," in our paper to detail the research approaches utilized. Our methodology integrates various qualitative and quantitative methods, such as semi-structured interviews, on-site investigations, graphical analysis, and rigorous data analysis. We trust that these additions adequately address your concerns.

Comment k: There is no evidence of results.

Response k: Thank you for your valuable feedback regarding the evidence of results in the manuscript. We appreciate your concern about the clear presentation of research findings. We would like to clarify that the results of our study are integrated within the case study and discussion sections, which provide a detailed analysis of the regeneration of Taiyuan's Bell Tower Street.

        Clarification on Results Presentation

        Case Study Section:

        In the case study section, we presented specific data and observations from the three stages of the project:

        Project Preparation Stage (2014-2017): Detailed the initial considerations, including planning documents and meeting minutes, highlighting the key issues and strategies identified for the regeneration project.

        Project Implementation Stage (2020-2021): Provided findings from semi-structured interviews and field observations, showing significant improvements in accessibility and mobility. For example, the transformation into a pedestrian-friendly area resulted in increased daily foot traffic from 30,000 to 60,000 people.

        Project Completion Stage (2021-Present): Included on-site investigations, stakeholder interviews, and statistical data analysis, demonstrating the project's impact on local business revenues, tax income, and social cohesion.

        Discussion Section:

In the discussion section, we interpreted these findings in the context of public value:

        Accessibility: Enhanced public spaces facilitated social interactions and cultural exchanges, aligning with public value principles.

        Economic Impact: Increased foot traffic and business revenues highlighted the economic vitality resulting from the regeneration efforts.

        Social and Cultural Value: The preservation of historical ambiance and the creation of new public spaces strengthened social cohesion and cultural identity, supporting the theoretical framework of public value.

        Additional EnhancementsTo further enhance the clarity and visibility of our results, we have made the following adjustments:

Clearly labeled sub-sections in the case study to highlight key findings.

Added summary tables and figures where appropriate to visualize the results more effectively.

Ensured that each finding is directly linked to the discussion on public value, providing a seamless narrative from evidence to interpretation.

 

Comment l: The Discussion must necessarily be separated from Conclusions and developed under its own conceptual dynamics.

Response l: We have revised the Section 5. Discussion according to your comment. Now it is separated from Section 6 conclusion and developed under its own conceptual dynamics, including four points:  accessibility and recentralization, mobility and economic effect, restoration measures and social value, contributions to the society and locals”(lines 599-631).

Comment m: The bibliographical references must necessarily reflect a broad view of the subject. As it is presented, most of the references are Asian and there is no transcendental content associated with institutions such as UNESCO or others.

Response m: Thank you for the insightful comment regarding the bibliographical references. I have revised the references section to include a broader view of the subject, incorporating more diverse and internationally recognized sources. I have added references to works associated with UNESCO and other significant institutions to enhance the academic rigor and global perspective of the paper.

For instance, the inclusion of UNESCO's 2011 Recommendations on the Historic Urban Landscape highlights the adverse effects of urbanization on heritage preservation and advocates for conservation strategies that align with a city's social and economic context​​. Additionally, the conceptual framework for Heritage Impact Assessment discussed by Ashrafi et al. (2021) is included to demonstrate the balance between cultural heritage protection and urban development needs, aligning with sustainable development policies​.

2) Form

Comment a: The presentation of contents according to the current headings and subheadings is not clear. It is usually simple: Introduction, Methodology, Results and Discussion, Conclusions and References; it should be taken up and applied.

Response a: Thank you for your feedback. We have revised the structure of our paper to enhance clarity. In Section 1, we provide a concise introduction to our research. Section 2 includes a comprehensive literature review. Section 3 now details our methodology. Section 4 presents a detailed case study. Sections 5&6 are the discussion and conclusion. We believe this revised structure better organizes our content according to standard academic conventions.

Comment b: The citation format should be revised throughout the document; brackets and parentheses are confused without clarifying the link or difference.

Response b: Thank you for your comment. We have reviewed and revised the citation format throughout the document to clarify the use of brackets and parentheses.

Comment c: The use of numbers and letters to detail the contents of different sections should be reviewed. There is confusion with the identification of headings and subheadings.

Response c: Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We have revised the numbering system used for our sections to eliminate confusion in identifying headings and subheadings.

Comment d: Revise the citation format of the text identifying the figures.

Response d: Thank you. We have revised the citation format of our figures to ensure clarity and consistency.

Comment e: Unify the typeface of figures and tables with the typeface of the text.

Response e: Thank you for your suggestion. We have standardized the typeface of figures and tables to match the text throughout the document for consistency and clarity.

Comment f: There are exaggeratedly long paragraphs, i.e. more than 10 lines, which makes it difficult to understand the contents.

Response f: We appreciate your feedback. To enhance readability, we have revised our paragraphs to ensure they are more concise and focused, making the content easier to comprehend.

Comment g: Leave at least one space between the end of the paragraph and the figures or tables.

Response g: Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We have adjusted the layout to ensure there is adequate spacing between paragraphs and figures/tables throughout the document.

Comment h: Adjust the legend or symbols of figures and tables to a more convenient size. It is too large.

Response h: We have resized the legends and symbols of our figures and tables to improve readability and visual clarity, addressing your concern.

Comment i: Figure 5 should be improved in terms of quality of content, overall size and size of typography. Symbology, orientation and scale are also lacking.

Response i: Thank you for your feedback on Figure 5. Due to the addition of a significant amount of content in our modifications, and to avoid excessive length, the importance of Figure 5 is relatively small. Therefore, we have removed it.

Comment j: Gaps in the pages should be avoided. Example, page 8.

Response j: We have reviewed and minimized gaps between pages to ensure a more cohesive and professional presentation of our document, including addressing any specific instances such as on page 8.

Comment k: The use of bold or italics in subheadings should be checked.

Response k: Thank you for your observation. We have reviewed and standardized the use of bold or italics in our subheadings to maintain consistency and improve readability throughout the paper.

Comment l: Avoid using successive subheadings with no or reduced content (3 or 4 lines).

Response l: We have adjusted our subheadings to ensure they appropriately reflect the content they introduce, avoiding instances where subheadings are overly brief or redundant.

Comment m: Review the format of bibliographical references in order to have all the elements that characterise and differentiate them.

Response m: We have carefully reviewed and updated the format of our bibliographical references to ensure they conform to standard conventions and include all necessary elements for clarity and accuracy.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. reduce the words of Abstract to around 200. Here it is unnecessary to elaborate on the time and stage of methodologies, just list them. 

2. The 3.1 (introduction of the case) should be moved to the beginning of Section 4, it is irrelevant to methodology. 

3. In the section Discussion, it is good you interpret the indicators. But I still think it's better to put them in section 4, following your analysis for each dimension.  just for your consideration. 

4 .It is confusing that the authors put many citations in the section of Discussion, where they offer personal analysis and comments on the case. I don't think these comments are from references. The authors may intend to correspond their arguments to the ideas from these references? If so, I suggest these references should be put in the literature review where the cited ideas are expected to be contextualised. 

5. Last, I suggest the authors apply some analysis tools like Space Syntax and ArcGIS to study the case in their further research. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

some improper use of capitalizing the first letter.

Author Response

Comments 1: reduce the words of Abstract to around 200. Here it is unnecessary to elaborate on the time and stage of methodologies, just list them. 

Response 1: Thank you for your valuable feedback regarding the abstract. We have revised the abstract to reduce the word count to around 200 words and removed the unnecessary elaboration on the time and stages of methodologies, as per your suggestion. The revised abstract now concisely lists the methodologies used.

Abstract: When profit-driven renewal is difficult to implement, many historic districts are “frozen protected” in China. In the social context of “building cities for the people” in recent years, the public value-oriented renewal of urban historic areas plays an important role in the transformation of cities.  This study investigates the strategies of historic district regeneration in China by integrating spatial form, urban governance, and public value. We propose a novel framework to analyze the regeneration of historic districts, using Taiyuan Bell Tower Street as a case study. The framework distinguishes between two dimensions: spatial and economic-social. In the spatial dimension, we focus on the transformation of spatial form to regenerate public value, emphasizing the attribute of "publicness" as central to urban regeneration efforts. This involves a tiered approach of excavating and upgrading historic districts at macro, meso, and micro levels. The economic-social dimension explores urban governance to enhance public value through collaboration among government, market, and societal actors. This study employs a mixed-methods approach, including document reviews, interviews, field observations, and statistical data analysis. The analysis highlights that a public value-oriented approach to heritage regeneration can balance historical preservation with contemporary urban needs, offering a sustainable model for other cities.

Comments 2: The 3.1 (introduction of the case) should be moved to the beginning of Section 4, it is irrelevant to methodology. 
Response 2: Thank you for your insightful feedback regarding the structure of our manuscript. We understand your concern about the placement of Section 3.1 (introduction of the case). To address this, we have moved the introduction of the case to the beginning of Section 4, as you suggested. This adjustment ensures that the methodology section remains focused and relevant.

Comments 3: In the section Discussion, it is good you interpret the indicators. But I still think it's better to put them in section 4, following your analysis for each dimension.  just for your consideration. 

Response 3: Thank you for your thoughtful feedback regarding the placement of the indicator interpretations in the Discussion section. We understand your suggestion to move these interpretations to Section 4, following the analysis for each dimension.

 

We have chosen to keep the interpretations in the Discussion section to provide a more comprehensive and integrated analysis of how each indicator contributes to the overall findings. This allows us to link the indicators more effectively to the broader themes and conclusions of the study, maintaining thematic coherence and improving the clarity and flow of the manuscript. We believe this structure best serves the goals of our study and offers a clear, cohesive narrative for our readers.

Comments 4: It is confusing that the authors put many citations in the section of Discussion, where they offer personal analysis and comments on the case. I don't think these comments are from references. The authors may intend to correspond their arguments to the ideas from these references? If so, I suggest these references should be put in the literature review where the cited ideas are expected to be contextualised. 

Response 4: Thank you for your insightful feedback regarding the citations in the discussion section. We understand your concern that the placement of these references may cause confusion. Our intention was to align our arguments with ideas from these references to demonstrate how they support our analysis. To address your concern, we have removed some unnecessary citations and moved the detailed discussion of the remaining references to the literature review section. Additionally, we have added brief explanations in the discussion section to clearly link our analysis to the supporting literature, ensuring clarity and coherence. （see lines 599-631 in the manuscript）

Comments 5: Last, I suggest the authors apply some analysis tools like Space Syntax and ArcGIS to study the case in their further research. 

Response 5: Regarding your suggestion to apply analysis tools such as Space Syntax and ArcGIS, we acknowledge the importance of these tools for a more comprehensive spatial analysis. While our current study primarily employs qualitative methods, we recognize the potential benefits of incorporating quantitative tools in future research. Therefore, we have included a new "Limitations and Future Research" section in the discussion to address this point and outline our plans for future studies. （see lines 634-642 in the manuscript）

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have greatly improved the original manuscript, according to my comments. The authors should make the text editing as much as possible.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I have yet to make specific comments about the quality of the English language.

Author Response

Comment: The authors have greatly improved the original manuscript, according to my comments. The authors should make the text editing as much as possible.

Response: Thank you very much for your comment and assistance. We have made some more improvements in the editing of the text. For example, we have carefully revised the Introduction, Discussion, and Conclusion sections. These sections have been further developed to ensure they provide a comprehensive and detailed analysis. （see lines 39-57 ,599-642,644-666 in the manuscript）

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Hello, 

On the adjustments made, it is commented that, although there are important improvements, much of what was previously indicated in the Introduction, Discussion and Conclusions sections is underdeveloped. Therefore, it would be appreciated if the previous report could be taken up again and adjusted with absolute attention and commitment. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

No apply

Author Response

Comments 1: On the adjustments made, it is commented that, although there are important improvements, much of what was previously indicated in the Introduction, Discussion and Conclusions sections is underdeveloped. Therefore, it would be appreciated if the previous report could be taken up again and adjusted with absolute attention and commitment. 

Response 1: Thank you for your valuable feedback on the manuscript. We have carefully revised the Introduction, Discussion, and Conclusion sections as per your suggestions. These sections have been further developed to ensure they provide a comprehensive and detailed analysis. We appreciate your constructive comments, which have significantly improved the clarity and depth of our manuscript. （see lines 39-57 ,599-642,644-666 in the manuscript）

 

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have no other comments. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some minor errors are still detected, and a thorough check is needed. 

Author Response

Comments on the Quality of English Language：Some minor errors are still detected, and a thorough check is needed. 

Response: Thank you for the reviewer's reminder. I have thoroughly checked the English of the article and made some minor revisions.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please, check the formal aspects.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

No apply

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors: Please, check the formal aspects.   Response: Thank you for the reviewer's reminder. I have thoroughly checked the form and English of the article and made some minor revisions.