Measuring Displacement before and after Repair on Korean Wooden Built Heritage: Records for Authenticity and Sustainability

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

The topic You considered in this article is interesting. However, there are concerns You should deal with:

1. You should describe the research gap in the Introductory section and give the paper layout at the end of the Introduction.

2. Can You provide some hypotheses for Your research and support them with Your findings and conclusions?

This is of great importance since I can not see the big value of this paper.

3. Is there a possibility to use the AHP in this article?

4. Could You give some conclusions related to the managerial aspect?

5. Can You manuscript with digitization process? You can find idea in
https://doi.org/10.23947/2334-8496-2023-11-2-221-229

6. The list of references is too small. You should add at least 10 new references.
One of them could be, for example,

 https://doi.org/10.18485/akademac_nsk.2023.4.ch2,

I think a major revision is needed for this article to be published in Sustainability.

English quality is fine.

Author Response

Reviewer1

Thank you for your kind review.

Review 1.
1. You should describe the research gap in the Introductory section and give the paper layout at the end of the Introduction.

• Authors add Line 121-129;

          In this study, the displacement of the Sungryeoljeon Shrine in Namhansanseong, the object of this study, was measured before and after its repair from 2017 to 2019. Subsequently, the displacements were measured again in 2023 to determine what changes had occurred since the repair. Accordingly, Chapter 2 examined the value of the Sungryeoljeon Shrine in Namhansanseong, a site inscribed on the UNESCO World Heritage List, and described how the displacement could be measured using a 3D scanner. Chapter 3 considered the Shrine Dismantling and Repair Report as a record of the repair of the Sungryeoljeon Shrine. Chapter 4 analyzed and interpreted the displacement measurement data using 3D scanning from 2017 to 2023.………

Review2

2. Can You provide some hypotheses for Your research and support them with Your findings and conclusions?

This is of great importance since I can not see the big value of this paper.

• Authors add Line 107-110;

   In addition, this study sought to emphasize that repair should be employed as a strategic measure to uphold the authenticity and ensure the long-term sustainability of Korean wooden built heritage and that records can be used as foundational data for future management and operation of cultural heritage.

•   And Line 130-135;

The hypothesis and aim of this study were to demonstrate that there is authenticity and sustainability despite changes in wooden built heritage by documenting and interpreting the displacement of a specific Korean wooden built heritage, the Sungryeoljeon Shrine, before and after the repair, and after the passage of time. Additionally, this study attempted to show that it is necessary to keep records to ensure authenticity and sustainability.

Review 3

3. 
   Is there a possibility to use the AHP in this article?

• Authors add Line 35-39;
  
  

Various methodologies have been developed to make value judgments based on precise criteria, for example, by applying analytical methodologies such as the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) to make decisions concerning cultural heritage [3,4]. Additionally, digital technology advances and new equipment, such as 3D scanners, have provided new and more precise methods of viewing cultural heritage [5–7].

  This paper does not cover AHP methodology. This study seeks to argue that all long-term records for authenticity and sustainability must be made. However, we believe it is necessary to mention the AHP methodology because it is important.

Review 4
4. Could You give some conclusions related to the managerial aspect?

•    Authors add Line 529-531;
  Furthermore, these records can be used as foundational data for securing long-term authenticity for Korean wooden built heritage as well as the management of cultural heritage in deciding whether to renovate or maintain it.

   Review 5

5. Can You manuscript with digitization process? You can find idea in
   https://doi.org/10.23947/2334-8496-2023-11-2-221-229

•   Authors add Line 38-39 and reference 6;

  Additionally, digital technology advances and new equipment, such as 3D scanners, have provided new and more precise methods of viewing cultural heritage [5–8].

Review 6

6. 
   The list of references is too small. You should add at least 10 new references.
   One of them could be, for example,

   https://doi.org/10.18485/akademac_nsk.2023.4.ch2,

•  Authors add Line 35-37 and reference 3 ;

   Various methodologies have been developed to make value judgments based on precise criteria, for example, by applying analytical methodologies such as the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) to make decisions concerning cultural heritage [3,4].

   And more references

  Thank you for your Kind review.

Reviewer 2 Report

General comments

The article is interesting, however there are some points that need to be improved, especially the materials and methods, results and discussion part.

Specific comments

Materials and Methods:

2.1. Research Object

Line 102: A space is missing between figure and 1.

Line129: Idem

2.2. Research Methods

Line 144 talks about "major points" but does not define them. are they perhaps the points set out between lines 148 to 155? This needs to be better explained to be related to figure 6.

Lines 162-174: This should be rewritten for a better understanding of the readers. To be related to figure 6

Figure 3 and 4. They are results. They should not be in this section

4. Results and Analysis

The results presented are rather cumbersome. You should think about presenting them in a different way.

There is a complete absence of discussion with any international reference to this.

Authors should use more references from international publications to improve the discussion part.

Author Response

Reviewer2

Thank you for your kind review.

Review 1;

Materials and Methods:

2.1. Research Object

Line 102: A space is missing between figure and 1.

Line129: Idem

• Authors changes about a space in missing points

Review2

2.2. Research Methods

Line 144 talks about "major points" but does not define them. are they perhaps the points set out between lines 148 to 155? This needs to be better explained to be related to figure 6.

Lines 162-174: This should be rewritten for a better understanding of the readers. To be related to figure 6

Figure 3 and 4. They are results. They should not be in this section

• Authors add explanations, Line 183-200;

    Therefore, three primary criteria were used to select the measurement points as “major points” [Figure 3]. First, two points at the ridge of the roof and four points at the rafters of the roof were selected; these locations are the farthest from the center of the building and represent the areas where the changes in the wood structure are most pronounced [Figure 3 (a)]. These points were expected to show the greatest change before and after repair. Changes over time after the repair were also expected because the substructure of the roof may change for stabilization.

Second, the top and bottom of the corner columns were identified as points where the displacement of a single member could be considered significant. This allowed for the determination of how one member could change the overall position. Additionally, since the long, large member is placed vertically for an extended time, focus was placed on which way it would tilt.

Third, the top of the stylobate corner, known for its stability, was measured. This served as a reference point in contrast with the greatest change areas. These points are the most stable and difficult to change even with repair work. Nevertheless, it is expected that they will gradually change during repair work or over time. These points can also be considered to be used as a reference for actual measurement because they are difficult to change.

• Authors move Figure 3 and 4 to the latter part of the paper

 Review 3

4. Results and Analysis

The results presented are rather cumbersome. You should think about presenting them in a different way.

•  The authors organized and added the conclusion part of the paper in a different way.

 Review 4

There is a complete absence of discussion with any international reference to this.

Authors should use more references from international publications to improve the discussion part.

• The authors added references and added their information to the body of paper.

  Thank you for your Kind review. The paper has been organized in a better way.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

I would like to thank you for your paper and your valuable contribution.

Focusing on recent interventions at the Sungryeoljeon Shrine in Namhansanseong, a designated World Heritage Site, the article analyses the displacement of some key points (edge of the roof; columns, etc.) before repair, immediately after repair, and again after a four-year interval, in order to demonstrate how accurate digital documentation is essential to ensure the authenticity of buildings and predict when they need to be repaired.

The following issues should be addressed before the paper can be considered for publication. 

1)     Specify if all the figures are owned by authors or others. While authorship is clear for subsequent images, it is particularly unclear for the first and second figures.

2)     The article contains very few references. In my opinion, the introduction should be expanded to cover various gaps: (i) regarding similar interventions on the Korean wooden heritage; (ii) concerning other studies analysing displacements before and after repair interventions; (iii) concerning the theory of restoration and the concept that studying displacements, or structural behaviour in general, is necessary to establish the authenticity of the building.

3)     The third chapter should be expanded to provide a more detailed description of the interventions carried out on the replaced elements. For instance, it would be appropriate to specify whether the tree species used in the intervention is the same as the one previously present, if the wooden elements have been crafted using traditional techniques, and if the connections have been reconstructed. All these details are of fundamental importance in the restoration of cultural heritage. These aspects are of interest not only for the specific study but also for understanding the general approach to restoration interventions on the built heritage in Korea.

4)     I recommend expanding the conclusions to encompass not only considerations related to the specific study involving the use of laser scanning and the analysis of displacements in key points of the building but also emphasising how the key to ensuring the authenticity of the built heritage lies in the construction techniques employed which should remain as unchanged as possible after interventions. In particular, I suggest that the authors, concerning restoration theories, explore the works of Cesare Brandi, a prominent figure in Italian restoration. The main concepts of his theory encompass Recognizability (identification of the parts subject to intervention and those authentically preceding it), Reversibility, and Minimal intervention.

Best Regards

Author Response

Reviewer3

  Thank you for your kind review.

1)     Specify if all the figures are owned by authors or others. While authorship is clear for subsequent images, it is particularly unclear for the first and second figures.

  -> The authors add the authorship in figures

2)     The article contains very few references. In my opinion, the introduction should be expanded to cover various gaps: (i) regarding similar interventions on the Korean wooden heritage; (ii) concerning other studies analysing displacements before and after repair interventions; (iii) concerning the theory of restoration and the concept that studying displacements, or structural behaviour in general, is necessary to establish the authenticity of the building.

  -> The authors added references and added their information to the body of paper.

3)     The third chapter should be expanded to provide a more detailed description of the interventions carried out on the replaced elements. For instance, it would be appropriate to specify whether the tree species used in the intervention is the same as the one previously present, if the wooden elements have been crafted using traditional techniques, and if the connections have been reconstructed. All these details are of fundamental importance in the restoration of cultural heritage. These aspects are of interest not only for the specific study but also for understanding the general approach to restoration interventions on the built heritage in Korea.

-> The authors added 319-330 and 347-359

The administrative dismantling and repair of Sungryeoljeon commenced on October 19, 2017, and concluded on December 8, 2019. The project included the entire East, West, Jasil (hall built for a memorial service), and Oesamun (outer three gates). Dismantling commenced on June 1, 2018, with the removal of the foundation stone on September 17. Assembling began on September 18, and the central staircase was installed on October 17, 2019. Certain aspects of the project were expedited to accommodate the construction sequence, including wood trimming and delayed dismantling. The scope of the repair included the complete dismantling of Sungryeoljeon down to the stylobate, followed by reassembly. Given the significant damage to the wooden members and the large displacements in Sungryeoljeon, this project was characterized as a replacement and repair endeavor for these members. Due to the extensive nature of the dismantling and reassembly, substantial displacements were anticipated at each point.

During the repair, the damaged members were replaced with the same type of wood, pine, while attempting to preserve the existing members as much as possible. As the replaced members were new, attempts were made to ensure that they were recognized naturally. Additionally, we tried to use traditional methods as much as possible by trimming the members in the same way. Details were created by trimming the members by hand to more precisely combine the old and new members, without damaging the existing ones. Consequently, it can be stated that the construction process implemented the concepts of minimal intervention and distinction of the new and original parts as discussed by Cesare Brandi and the repair was undertaken considering Alois Riegl’s “the value of change over time” [Figures 5–7]. It is important to note that by using these methods, we attempted to create the conditions to secure and maintain the authenticity and sustainability of the Sungryeoljeon Shrine.

  And

The Sungryeoljeon Dismantling and Repair Report provides a comprehensive drawing of the shrine before and after construction. However, a lack of records detailing the coordinates and locations of each point of Sungryeoljeon before construction is evident, as well as data on the coordinates of each point after construction. In particular, a lack of information on the timeline was observed since the completion of construction.

It may be impractical to document every detail of a building in a dismantling and repair report or a measured building survey. However, the report falls short by not including coordinates for each point, tracking alterations in these points before and after construction, and noting changes over time.

The changes in the points observed in this study represent a substantial transformation in Korean wooden built heritage and merit comprehensive documentation. Such a record serves as a pivotal foundation for safeguarding and perpetuating the preservation of built heritage.

4)     I recommend expanding the conclusions to encompass not only considerations related to the specific study involving the use of laser scanning and the analysis of displacements in key points of the building but also emphasising how the key to ensuring the authenticity of the built heritage lies in the construction techniques employed which should remain as unchanged as possible after interventions. In particular, I suggest that the authors, concerning restoration theories, explore the works of Cesare Brandi, a prominent figure in Italian restoration. The main concepts of his theory encompass Recognizability (identification of the parts subject to intervention and those authentically preceding it), Reversibility, and Minimal intervention.

 ->  The authors added Line 46-61;

Theoretically, art historian Alois Riegl once addressed a universal concept applicable to the world of cultural heritage. What he called “age-value (alterswert)” is related to the characteristics of Korean wooden architectural heritage, which was this study’s focus [13]. It is because such a concept classifies value according to the passage of time and, consequently, imposes a “historical value (kunsthitoricheswert)” to secure “the value of change over time.” According to “age-value,” sustainability can be distinguished and is integrated into Korean traditional wooden buildings [13].

In addition, the concepts of “realistic dimension” and “ideological dimension,” mentioned by the Italian art critic and historian, specialist in conservation-restoration theory, Cesare Brandi, can be applied to the physical restoration of an artwork and the restoration of its spiritual and cultural value and meaning. He proposed the concepts of recognizability (each intervention must be distinguishable from the original), reversibility, and minimal intervention [14,15].

In Korea, technical standards for measuring displacement of wooden built heritage using 3D scanning have been prepared and research is being conducted [16–18]. However, it has not yet been possible to investigate and record changes to a single wooden built heritage site over an extended period.

And The authors added Line 319-330;

During the repair, the damaged members were replaced with the same type of wood, pine, while attempting to preserve the existing members as much as possible. As the replaced members were new, attempts were made to ensure that they were recognized naturally. Additionally, we tried to use traditional methods as much as possible by trimming the members in the same way. Details were created by trimming the members by hand to more precisely combine the old and new members, without damaging the existing ones. Consequently, it can be stated that the construction process implemented the concepts of minimal intervention and distinction of the new and original parts as discussed by Cesare Brandi and the repair was undertaken considering Alois Riegl’s “the value of change over time” [Figures 5–7]. It is important to note that by using these methods, we attempted to create the conditions to secure and maintain the authenticity and sustainability of the Sungryeoljeon Shrine. 

And The authors added Line 539-549;

Based on various international charters starting from the “Nara Document on Authenticity” and the theories of Cesare Brandi and Alois Riegl, this study discussed more advanced concepts of maintaining sustainability that can also be applied to Korea’s wooden built heritage. This means that the authenticity and sustainability of wooden built heritage can be maintained despite various changes, such as repair to wooden built heritage, when there are sufficient records kept over an extended period. Additionally, greater awareness of the value of long-term and continuous recording of the diverse cultural heritage of local cultures is required. This will assist by providing a method of ensuring authenticity and sustainability that incorporates the unique characteristics of local and built heritage.

  Really thank you for your review. The paper has been organized in a better way.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

Thank You for the report. I appreciate the effort You made to make the manuscript of better quality. 

Please, enrich the list of references.

After this is done, the paper, in my opinion, could be accepted for publication.

Kind regards.

Author Response

Thank you for your review.

Please, enrich the list of references.

• Authors added several references and lines 53-64 ;

In addition, the concepts of “realistic dimension” and “ideological dimension,” mentioned by the Italian art critic and historian, specialist in conservation-restoration theory, Cesare Brandi, can be applied to the physical restoration of an artwork and the restoration of its spiritual and cultural value and meaning. He proposed the concepts of recognizability (each intervention must be distinguishable from the original), reversibility, and minimal intervention [16,17].

Internationally, some researches have been conducted on measuring the amount of change through one-time measurement of wooden architectural heritage.[18-20] In Korea, technical standards for measuring displacement of wooden built heritage using 3D scanning have been prepared and research is being conducted [21–23]. However, it has not yet been possible to investigate and record changes to a single wooden built heritage site over an extended period.

Really thank you.

Reviewer 2 Report

There is a complete absence of discussion with any international reference to this.

Authors should use more references from international publications to improve the discussion part.

Author Response

Thank you for your review.

There is a complete absence of discussion with any international reference to this.

Authors should use more references from international publications to improve the discussion part.

• Authors adds several references and lines 53-64;

 In addition, the concepts of “realistic dimension” and “ideological dimension,” mentioned by the Italian art critic and historian, specialist in conservation-restoration theory, Cesare Brandi, can be applied to the physical restoration of an artwork and the restoration of its spiritual and cultural value and meaning. He proposed the concepts of recognizability (each intervention must be distinguishable from the original), reversibility, and minimal intervention [16,17].

Internationally, some researches have been conducted on measuring the amount of change through one-time measurement of wooden architectural heritage.[18-20] In Korea, technical standards for measuring displacement of wooden built heritage using 3D scanning have been prepared and research is being conducted [21–23]. However, it has not yet been possible to investigate and record changes to a single wooden built heritage site over an extended period.

  Really Thank you.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

I appreciate the modifications you have made. In my opinion, the new version of the paper is a valuable contribution and is ready for publication. I would only suggest adding the source of Figure 1 to the references in the final version. Additionally, I recommend verifying whether you have obtained the necessary permissions to publish Figure 6 taken from the Repair Report.

Author Response

Thank you for your review.

I would only suggest adding the source of Figure 1 to the references in the final version. Additionally, I recommend verifying whether you have obtained the necessary permissions to publish Figure 6 taken from the Repair Report.

• Authors adds the source of Figure 1 and Line 146
• Authors adds the permissions to publish Figure1 and Figure 6 ;

Figure 1 and Figure 6 are open source produced and released by the government. So, the captions of Figure 1 and Figure 6 indicate that they are open source.

Really thank you.

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

the proposed changes have been made