A Comparative Study of the Spatial Morphology of Traditional Villages as Sustainable Cultural Heritage: The Case of Jiangnan Region
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis manuscript presents a comprehensive study on the spatial morphology of traditional villages in the Jiangnan region, integrating cultural qualitative analysis with digital quantitative methods. The research is well-structured, methodologically sound, and addresses a significant gap in the field of cultural heritage conservation. The proposed Cultural Spatial Morphology Form Clue (CSMFC) and Situational Research Method (SRM) are innovative and contribute to both theoretical and practical aspects of village conservation.
1.Methodology
The SRM framework effectively bridges the gap between cultural qualitative analysis and digital quantification. The process of constructing the CSMFC and applying the SRM could be described in greater detail. Providing a flowchart or table summarizing the decision-making process would be helpful.
2.Statistical Rigor
Although the study employs quantitative indicators, the statistical analysis is only briefly mentioned. More detailed statistical tests (e.g., ANOVA, correlation analysis) could strengthen the validity of the comparative results.
3.Conclusion
The conclusion could better summarize the key findings and their broader implications for heritage policy and rural sustainability.
4.Figures and Tables
The quality of Figures 12–17 and 19 is suboptimal, resulting in poor readability.
Table 2 is informative but could be optimized in format to improve readability.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
Firstly, I would like to thank you for your work in this field.
You did a good job!
After extensive reading, I only have a few comments for the current version, which are not many but essential.
For revision details, please see the following:
[1] The topic of the paper has important cultural heritage protection value, but the research innovation is insufficient. The article mainly continues traditional morphological analysis methods, lacking new theoretical perspectives or methodological breakthroughs. It is suggested to clearly indicate the research innovation points in the introduction, such as establishing a new analytical framework or comparative logic between spatial form and cultural heritage protection;
[2] The case selection is representative, but the research scope and comparison criteria are not clear enough. The basis for selecting these villages and the specific criteria for comparing dimensions such as street and alley patterns, water system structures, and building layouts should be explained in detail to enhance the systematicity and reproducibility of the research;
[3] The description of the method section is relatively vague, especially in terms of morphological quantitative indicators and GIS analysis steps, lacking parameter definitions and technical details. Suggest supplementing data sources, surveying accuracy, and analysis software processes, and presenting the research framework in a flowchart to make the method more transparent;
[4] The result analysis, although rich in charts, lacks explanatory power. Most analyses remain at the level of describing morphological differences and fail to delve into the cultural, social, or environmental factors that contribute to these differences. Suggest linking the results with historical evolution, geographical conditions, or social organizational structure to enhance research depth;
[5] The discussion and conclusion section should further focus on academic contributions. The current conclusion mainly summarizes the research findings and lacks reflection on traditional village spatial research or cultural heritage protection theory. Suggest adding methodological insights and future research directions in the discussion to enhance the academic value of the paper;
[6] The overall English writing is clear, but there are issues with excessive length, repetitive sentence structures, and inconsistent concepts. It is recommended to simplify the language and adjust the logic of the entire text to ensure accurate expression and consistent terminology. The conclusion section should be more concise and powerful.
If my comments are properly considered and followed, I have no further comments on this manuscript.
Again, I have a high comment on your current contribution.
All my upon-revision recommendations are intended to help this manuscript be more readable for readers.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis article presents a very interesting concept related to cultural aspects and the shape of villages.
Overall, I highly recommend this article. I have never encountered this approach in the literature before. Typically, as the authors rightly point out, village shapes refer to the morphology of the terrain.
Below are just a few minor comments that could improve the article.
1. In Table 2, which is the best part of the article, Spatial expression form 12: is unnamed. Is this an oversight? Or did you really not find a suitable name for this type of village?
2. When analyzing cultural aspects, it would be worthwhile to refer to the age of the villages. Does their formation sometimes influence the specific shape and the reference to symbolism?
3. I appreciate the presentation of the literature analysis using Figures 2 and 3, but they need to be more readable. They are difficult to interpret at this resolution. I suggest including them enlarged as a supplementary file.
Congratulations on your excellent work!
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript does not sufficiently advance theoretical debates on cultural landscape morphology, spatial humanities, or heritage conservation. The conceptual framework is overly deterministic, reducing culture to fixed categories (clan, ecological, Feng Shui) without acknowledging hybridity, co-evolution, or cultural negotiation. The proposed CSMFC is conceptually under-theorized and insufficiently justified. The manuscript fails to situate its contribution in contemporary theory, including metamodern shift in social sciences and cultural analysis (see for example Matlovič and Matlovičová 2025, Storm 2021), which explicitly deal with the instability, contingency, and oscillatory character of cultural-spatial forms—precisely the dynamics the authors seek to study.
Metamodern theory argues for an oscillation between structure and indeterminacy, tradition and innovation, quantification and meaning, rather than forcing phenomena into discrete, essentialist categories. The authors currently treat “culture types” as static containers, ignoring overlaps, hybridization, and co-evolution of social and spatial practices. Post-foundational geography recognizes that cultural forms do not stem from singular foundational causes but emerge from contingent interactions, affective imaginaries, and relational processes. The manuscript implies a foundational causal link between culture and morphology without considering contingency or antagonism. Metamodern geography views spatial forms as complex adaptive systems, emerging from nonlinear dynamics rather than linear cultural determinants. The manuscript discusses Feng Shui “artistic images,” but without situating them in contemporary theories of cultural semiosis/hylosemiotics, place imaginaries, or material-semiotic entanglements.
I recommend that the authors add a new theoretical section in which they explicitly position the research within contemporary metamodern, complexity-oriented framework. Without this, the manuscript remains theoretically outdated.
The newly introduced “situational research method (SRM)” is not a method in the scientific sense. It is vaguely defined, not reproducible, and contains no epistemological grounding. The cultural categories are arbitrarily constructed, lacking anthropological or historical justification. The method must be defined operationally: what constitutes a “situational” layer? how are qualitative cultural attributes quantified? what validation procedures exist? To justify typologies and boundaries, apply: PCA or cluster analysis, ANOVA or MANOVA, spatial statistics (Moran’s I, LISA).
Tthe dataset is valuable and the integrative ambition is commendable. With deep revision—especially incorporating the metamodern theoretical insights about complexity, oscillation, semiotics, and post-foundational cultural reasoning—the manuscript could become publishable.
References:
MATLOVIČ, R., MATLOVIČOVÁ, K. 2025. The Metamodern Shift in Geographical
Thought: Oscillatory Ontology and Epistemology, Post-disciplinary and Post-paradigmatic Perspectives. Folia Geographica, 67(1), 22-69.
STORM, J.A.J. (2021). Metamodernism. The Future of Theory. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 359 p. ISBN 978-0-226-78665-0.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageNumerous sentences are overly long, grammatically inconsistent, or imprecisely formulated, which obscures key arguments and weakens the overall scholarly tone. I recommend that the authors engage in a comprehensive language edit, ideally with the assistance of a native speaker or a professional academic editing service, to improve grammar, syntax, terminology, and stylistic coherence.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have carefully addressed the comments and have made comprehensive and effective revisions to the manuscript. The main issues have been resolved.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI have no further comments.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI propose accepting the manuscript in its current form.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
