The Impact of Urban Expressways on the Street Space of Traditional Tibetan Villages in Kham, Taking Daofu County as an Example

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript deals with the use of Spatial Syntax methods to explore the characteristics of street elements in a set of traditional villages. I find this paper and the method used very interesting and I believe it can become a good manuscript after some reviews. I provide some suggestions in the following, hoping they can help the authors to improve the paper:

- In general, I believe the manuscript is too case-study oriented. While I agree that the case study plays a key role in the rationale behind the method used in the paper, all the procedure could be applied in different territorial contexts around the world, e.g. small cities, rural areas... the authors might consider to generalize a bit more the abstract and the introduction

- I would suggest the authors to separate the introduction from the literature review section; this would make it easier for the reader to understand the research question and the innovations beyond the state of the art. 

- The flowchart presented in Figure 3 looks quite clear. However, it is very difficult to find clear explanations of the steps in section 2.2. I suggest the authors to revise this section and try to describe the steps as close as possible to the ones indicated in the flowchart.

- Lines 150-152: I believe the authors forgot to delete some sentences which were in the MDPI template

- In lines 198-207 the authors introduce 3 questions; it is very unusual to find research questions at this step, while they should be clear stated in the introduction section at the beginning of the paper

- More in general, all the methodology section is a bit difficult to follow by the reader; please consider to revise it according to your flowchart and create subsections which are consistent with the planned method's steps. Or, conversely, please adapt the flowchart to your method's steps.

- The results are clearly presented and looks interesting. The limitations of the method provided in lines 516-530 might be moved to conclusion sections where further research can be presented

- English is quite good in general; however, some sentences are weird to read or repetitive and I found some typos (e.g., "system system" line 111). I suggest the authors to go through a deep revision of the paper.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments

Dear authors,

The theme of this study is undoubtedly of great importance for the field of research in urbanism and for reflection on decision-making and professional practice. The aim of the paper is clear and relevant; it focuses on the impact of urban expressways on traditional villages in Daofu, in the Kham Tibetan region of Ganzi.

It is also very worrying. Especially when political decisions and city design solutions may compromise the heritage, cultural heritage, intangible values of cities, towns or villages.

The study is very much supported by useful information, produced and processed by the authors. This (extensive) information (“paper data” folder) is presented in the main text or in the appendices.

Here are some suggestions that may help to improve and strengthen the manuscript.

Abstract section

In general, the abstract is well structured. However, in the end of this section, very little is said regarding the results achieved. Perhaps the last sentence could be developed a little further [“The results show that TypeC (intersecting with urban expressways) has higher categorized spatial measures…”].

Also, some sentences are too long which does not facilitate communicability.

Example: “In recent years, with urbanization, urban roads have penetrated into remote traditional villages in Tibetan areas, changing the street space of the villages. In this study, 18 well-preserved traditional villages in the Tibetan area of Kham were selected as case studies, and from the perspective of spatial syntax, the axial model and spatial model were constructed, the simulated Depth, Choice, Integration, Connectivity data were aggregated, and the categorized spatial measures and star model of the streets were further calculated.”

Also:

“Traditional villages in the Kham Tibetan region were classified according to their relationship with urban expressway, namely those adjacent to urban expressways (TypeA), those away from urban expressways (TypeB) and those intersecting urban expressways (TypeC), and the shape, topography and housing involved in the three sample groups were described, followed by one-way ANOVA and Turkey’s multiple comparisons test.”

In English writing this is not a good way to write!

1.3. Research content and objectives sub-section

Line 111 – error – “(…) to establish a village spatial system system (…)”.

Lines 113 – 115 - Authors wrote: “The derived thresholds are conducive to improving the regular cognition of Chinese traditional village forms, constructing a perfect village map, and helping village managers to view the spatial pattern of traditional villages rationally.”

But, what about practitioners? Does this study bring advantages only for village managers, as said?

Doesn't the study also help practitioners to better recognise technically the patrimony and the layout of the streets in their towns and villages? Would it help them to better design the urban environment where necessary? Please explain… if it is the case.

1.4. Research innovation and value sub-section

Lines 117 – 119 - Authors wrote: “This study focuses the vision of spatial syntax for the first time on the spatial structure classification of traditional Tibetan villages on the plateau, and proposes three types of classification formed by the influence of urban expressways.” How can the authors be so sure that this study focuses the view of spatial syntax for the first time on classifying the spatial structure of traditional Tibetan villages? Have authors done a comprehensive review of the literature on this topic?

Line 149 – Legend of Figure 1 – Would it be better: “Figure 1. Tibetan cultural areas and the location of the study area”?

Lines 160 – 162 - “Figure 2. Distribution of village samples” - is difficult to read! The graphic quality is very low.

References section

Lines 636-637 – errors – “(…) Study of spatial structure of urban system in ecologu-vulmerable regions in northeastern periphery (…)”.

Final notes for authors:

The manuscript is clear and relevant for the research domain and it is well-structured.

I would have liked to see more recent references on the subject in the article.

The experimental design is appropriate to test the hypothesis.

In general, the graphic quality of the visual material is insufficient, making it difficult to read and to understand some details, even when the file/image is enlarged on the monitor. Probably, authors could subdivide some of the figures… material… (Example – Figure 4).

The present list of comments does not dispense other necessary comments from other experts more devoted to the study of spatial syntax and ANOVA methods.

Kindest regards.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors responded to all my comments and suggestions