The Application and Development of Historical Building Information Modeling in Chinese Architectural Heritage: Sustainability Assessment and Prospects

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Summary

 “The Application of HBIM in Chinese Architectural Heritage: Sustainability Assessment and Prospects” recognizes the need for applying digital interoperable repositories to historic buildings in China to facilitate sustainability. The primary contribution of the paper is finding the current state of HBIM application and development in China. The authors evaluated the amount of HBIM-related research and its institutional distribution in China. They found only marginal activities where scholars explored HBIM development through the sustainability perspective. The researchers discovered that recent HBIM scholarship in China is mostly positioned within the early development stage of heritage information models and visualization display. The authors cited that additional scholarship occurs less frequently and inconsistently in the domains of parametric and procedural modeling, multi-dimensional extended applications, and the construction and management of collaborative platforms. The strength of the paper recognizes that research is not fully explored regarding HBIM and sustainability by coupling heritage concepts with and across the dimensions of economy, society, and the environment. The authors suggest deploying HBIM in the model construction stage and in the model application stage.

General concept comments

Overall comments about the paper. (1) Generally, the manuscript is grammatically and stylistically well-written with good structure and readability. (2) The writing level and rigor are suitable for the journal’s readership and meets the standards in the field. (3) The subject matter is timely and important to architectural historians and the sustainability community. (4) The title adequately expresses the contents of the paper, but could extend further. (5) The abstract is clear and concise and includes context, knowledge gap (HBIM and the notions of economy, society, and the environment in China), method, primary conclusions, and aim. (6) The overview and the results sections appear to have contradictory claims regarding HBIM development. (7) The research method is sound. The review research analyzes current scholarship to provide an overview of HBIM, while the comparative research contextualizes the progress of HBIM in the case of China. The authors identify the journal databases which along with the methods facilitate replicability. Further explanation of the selection or elimination process would be helpful. (8) The citations are recent, appropriate, and defend the conclusions, although more depth should be used to strengthen the economy, society, and the environment dimensions. (9) The figures and tables are appropriate, although one would benefit from a deeper explanation. (10) The discussion section includes adequate limitations of the study. (11) The discussion section would gain from a deeper inquiry into suggested HBIM implementation strategy. In the United States, the federal government projects require BIM since 2003, we do not currently require HBIM. This reviewer is curious as to how a building is classified as heritage worthy in China; and whether the HBIM would be organically implemented by the people or does there need to be governmental support, regulations, or mandates. 

Specific comments

Specific comments regarding the content. Referring to item (4) above, the authors may choose to include the term “Application and Development” in the title as both are achieved. For item (6) above, please address the opposing claims for the four practical directions of HBIM. Section 2.2 line 242 reads, “Many Chinese teams have carried out in-depth research based on these efforts” and section 5 line 519 provides, “Only a few scholars have carried out research in the other four aspects”. Please distinguish where these occur at the different levels of applications and development of HBIM. From item (7) above, I would suggest that the authors provide more clarity on the selection process for the chosen relevant practical projects in China. Were the selected projects a result of the elicited theme from the overall research, or simply the best representations. For item (8), please strengthen the citation support for sustainable development economy, society, and the environment by adding in-paper citations and references. The authors recognize the 1987 WCED, but do not provide an in-paper citation or reference for the “Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future” or acknowledge Gro Harlem Brundtland as leading the commission. Line 42 includes a quotation from the 2015 UN SDG, but does not include an in-paper citation and reference. The 2012 China report is the same. Suggest the authors review and update the in-paper citations in the introduction and add to the references. For item (9) figure 2, please describe why Tianjin University has four to five time more scholarship than other institutions. This reviewer is curious as to the reason, and whether the additional research might skew the timeline data in Figure 1. Also, the figure 2 title on line 139 has ‘heritage’ after ‘building’. Suggest keeping with the HBIM order. The first appearance of HBIM appears in the body of the paper on line 72. The formal acronym description does not appear until line 112. Suggest moving the description to line 72 at the first mention of HBIM.

I enjoyed reviewing this paper. I thank everyone for their efforts.

Author Response

PDF 文件中的答复

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper focuses on the development status and application of HBIM in the protection of Chinese architectural heritage, as well as on the evaluation of the sustainability perspective of HBIM. HBIM has made remarkable progress in data integration and management, digital preservation of historical buildings, parametric and semantic modeling, multi-source data fusion, and interdisciplinary collaboration platforms. This paper analyzes nearly one hundred relevant research findings and finds that not only are there a lack of reviews on the development and application of HBIM technology in China, but also that there is a serious lack of discussions and research on its sustainability. The presented publication is only as stated by the authors for Chinese architectural heritage.
However, the research review may be applicable to other countries. The article does not bring new scientific knowledge but only research that can be further developed based on the review of previous research. 

In my opinion, however, the article is publishable in the journal in which the authors plan to publish it.

Author Response

Response in PDF file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Research on the application of HBIM in Chinese architectural heritage from a sustainability perspective could be of great value to the industry. Such research should present the topic in detail and substantiate its conclusions. In order to highlight the added value of the research, it is recommended to refer to the following comments:

A. General comments

1. The acronym HBIM is presented without explanation. An explanation of acronyms should be presented as is customary.
2. Section 1. The acronym HBIM is presented without explanation. An explanation of the acronym should also be presented in the section.
3. Section 2. The acronyms VR and MR are not explained. Explanations of the acronyms should be presented as is customary.

B. Specific comments

1. Section 1. A. The introductory section states that overall, the sustainability of HBIM technology has not received much attention, especially in China, but it is not explained what kind of sustainability the study is referring to, and in what context. Authors are encouraged to explain the types of sustainability they are referring to, including providing clear definitions from the literature. It is also recommended to refer to the literature on sustainability in the context of BIM, and in particular the socio-cultural sustainability that can be achieved through BIM, as it is relevant to heritage. It is recommended to expand on this in an additional background section to establish the connection to HBIM. B. The section does not present a precise research question and how the authors intend to answer it. Authors are advised to precisely formulate the research question and detail how they intend to answer it.
2. Section 2. This section presents a combined literature review, methodology, and results. It is recommended that authors present a special background section, in which it is important to present the definitions of sustainability accepted in the literature. It is also recommended to address cultural sustainability, which is also relevant to the research topic, and link it to BIM. It is also recommended to present a methodology section, in which it is important to detail the manner in which the information was collected.
3. Section 5. The title of the section refers to “Results” even though these were presented in the previous section. Furthermore, the section actually seeks to summarize the description of the application of HBIM in the protection of Chinese architectural heritage and present an assessment of the sustainability of HBIM technology, but does not substantiate the results and does not present a discussion. It is recommended that the authors rephrase Sections 3 and 4 and present a unified Results section.
4. Section 6. The title of the section refers to "Discussion" even though the section itself presents a summary. Authors are advised to draft a discussion section in which they address the results and establish broad insights. In addition, it is recommended to draft a concluding section that emphasizes the added value of the study according to the authors, presents its limitations, and suggests the possibility of expanding it.

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Response in PDF file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors' response document is written in Chinese and their responses cannot be understood. In addition, an examination of the second version of the manuscript shows that not all comments were addressed extensively. It is recommended that the authors address all comments in detail, including the definition of the research question, and the reformulation of the results and discussion sections, while presenting a summary section. It is also recommended to address the definition of sustainability in its various forms, including cultural sustainability, which is relevant to the topic, the connection of BIM with sustainability, and especially cultural sustainability, while addressing the manner of implementation in HBIM.

Author Response

I'm truly sorry. There was an error in the version during the file transfer process, and I will pay more attention to it in the future. Thank you for your reply. 

I have uploaded the response document (English version).

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors' response document is again written in Chinese and their responses cannot be understood. The document is not presented in a revised version as is customary, so that revisions cannot be tracked directly. In addition, a review of the third draft of the manuscript shows that no further attention was paid to the substantive comments. It is recommended for the third time that the authors address all comments in detail, including defining the research question, and reformulating the results and discussion sections, while presenting a conclusions section. It is also recommended to address the definition of sustainability in its various forms, including cultural sustainability, as it is relevant to the topic, connecting BIM with sustainability and especially cultural sustainability, while addressing the manner of implementation in HBIM.

Author Response

The Application and Development of HBIM in Chinese Architectural Heritage: Sustainability Assessment and Prospects

Chaoran Xu 1, Cong Wu 2*, Jianghua Wang 3,*, Hanfang Liu 4

We sincerely appreciate the meticulous evaluation and constructive feedback provided by the editors and reviewers. These have significantly enhanced the quality and clarity of our manuscript. We have carefully addressed all the comments through comprehensive revisions, ensuring that the manuscript meets the standards of the journal and improving its readability.

For your convenience in review, we have directly uploaded the draft of the paper. In combination with your suggestions, we have made annotations and responses in different paragraphs. Once again, we are grateful for your guidance, and we welcome any further comments from you to refine this work. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 4

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It appears that work was done by the authors that resulted in some improvement in the additional version. It is important to present precise wording in the sections for better understanding. To emphasize the added value of the study, it is recommended to refer to the following notes.

1. The introductory section is long and cumbersome and does not clearly present the gap that the study aims to bridge. Furthermore, although sustainability is presented as the topic of the study, there is no clear explanation of which sustainability the study chose to discuss. Furthermore, the section presents a type of technological sustainability without any support in the literature. It is suggested, again, that the authors present what the research question is that has not been answered in the literature and why it is important. Since socio-cultural sustainability and BIM seem to be particularly relevant to research on heritage, it is suggested again to elaborate on them in a separate background section, which includes references and establishes the connection to HBIM.
2. To assist authors in formulating a background for describing socio-cultural sustainability and its promotion by BIM, several examples from the literature are presented.
   1. "Integration of Building Information Modelling (BIM) for Cultural Preservation in Infrastructure Development in Bali, Indonesia". In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science (Vol. 1416, No. 1, p. 012040). IOP Publishing.
   2. "A sustainable sociocultural combination of building information modeling with integrated project delivery in a social network perspective. Clean technologies and environmental policy, 20, 1017-1032."
   3. "The outlook of building information modeling for sustainable development. Clean Technol Environ Policy 18:1877–1887"
   4. "Culture in, for and as sustainable development. Conclusions from the COST Action IS1007 investigating cultural sustainability. University of Jyväskylä, Finland"
   5. "IPD and BIM-focussed methodology in renovation of heritage buildings. Construction management and economics, 40(3), 186-206."
   6. "Driving Sustainable Cultural Heritage Tourism in China through Heritage Building Information Modeling. Buildings, 14(10), 3120."

3. Section 2 presents the research methods and framework but does not justify the reasons for using them while referring to the literature. Authors are advised to present a justification for choosing the research methods for their framework.
4. Section 7. The section title refers to the discussion of the study, although the section itself presents a summary. It is recommended that authors rewrite the discussion section to address the results they presented, provide insights, and compare with other studies.
5. This study did not include a summary section. It is recommended that authors write a separate section that emphasizes the added value of the study, presents its limitations, and suggests the possibility of expanding it.

 

Author Response

Comments 1:The introductory section is long and cumbersome and does not clearly present the gap that the study aims to bridge. Furthermore, although sustainability is presented as the topic of the study, there is no clear explanation of which sustainability the study chose to discuss. Furthermore, the section presents a type of technological sustainability without any support in the literature. It is suggested, again, that the authors present what the research question is that has not been answered in the literature and why it is important. Since socio-cultural sustainability and BIM seem to be particularly relevant to research on heritage, it is suggested again to elaborate on them in a separate background section, which includes references and establishes the connection to HBIM.

 

Response 1: We have taken your opinions into consideration and marked the replies and modifications in the article as "notes".

 

Section 2 presents the research methods and framework but does not justify the reasons for using them while referring to the literature. Authors are advised to present a justification for choosing the research methods for their framework.

 

Response 2: We have taken your opinions into consideration and marked the replies and modifications in the article as "notes".

 

Section 7. The section title refers to the discussion of the study, although the section itself presents a summary. It is recommended that authors rewrite the discussion section to address the results they presented, provide insights, and compare with other studies.

 

Response 3: We have taken your opinions into consideration and marked the replies and modifications in the article as "notes".

 

This study did not include a summary section. It is recommended that authors write a separate section that emphasizes the added value of the study, presents its limitations, and suggests the possibility of expanding it.

 

Response 4: We have taken your opinions into consideration and marked the replies and modifications in the article as "notes".

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 5

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It appears that extensive work was conducted by the authors, which resulted in an improvement in the additional version.