Resolving the Urban Dilemma of Two Adjacent Rivers through a Dialogue between GIS and Augmented Reality (AR) of Fabrics
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper is focused on the urban analysis (and planning simulations) of the Keelung area between the Asahikawa River and Tianliao River fronts, Taiwan, to foresee planning scenarios in order to reactivate the cultural landscapes that had previously characterized the area. The aim is to understand if the development process could be changed to correct or reactivate the old urban fabric, and foresee planning scenarios.
The analysis was performed via GIS and AR made by UAV images and 3D drawings, to trace development, AR-based simulations and comparisons.
The most important issue and aim is the use of digital tools to foresee sustainable urbanization simulations through augmented dynamics.
- The abstract should be shortened respecting the 200 words limit and should be more consistent, clearly stating the aims, methods and achievements of the research.
- The presented work is of relevance to the journal sections “Urban Remote Sensing” - "Application of GIS, BIM and Linked Digitisations in Urban Heritage" and related topics. However, in the reviewer’s opinion the manuscript should be revised, since some flaws concerning research design, methods and presentation can be observed.
- The introduction well explain the area under analysis and the need for redevelopment, but this section should place the study in a broad context and highlight the process between GIS and Augmented Reality and why it is important.
- The section “Related studies” is quite fragmented, not focused on the main issues faced by the paper, and lacks of a critical / interpretative position regarding the use of remote sensing for urban mapping.
- The section “2.1. Physical and AR dynamics” is not fully clear. Why do the authors use the form “should” in describing the application of physical and augmented dynamics in urban study? It is not clear what has been done within the presented work.
- Within section 2.3 it is mentioned that “The drafting/BIM to geo-referenced/GIS mesh models visually presented floor numbers, height, breezeways, street-facing arcades, and void interior arcades, which used to be hidden from UAV models. The details in the BIM model and the (semi-)void space also presented a feasible collaboration with traditional drawings, such as maps in GIS, except the vertical fabric in terms of second skin was presented with more graphically annotated information.”
Methods to perform these models (point cloud models, BIM, meshed models, etc.) should be explained. The procedure to obtain models (source data, accuracy, critical choices, etc.) is not clear.
- Although section 3 is full of interesting elements having to do with the analytical part of the work (including simulations), the previous section on digitisation is confusing and lacks an organized explanation of the steps that led to the creation of digital models.
- The concept of “second skin” appears several times before the paragraph 3.2.2 (where it is explained); it should be briefly clarified the first time it is used, otherwise it is difficult to understand the relevance for buildings facades / urban planning.
- References are sufficiently up-to-dated (out of 73 references, 32 are within the last 5 years).
- Pictures and tables well support the discussion.
- Despite the overall process is explained in detail, the paper seems unbalanced towards the discussion of results obtained through digital processing, only briefly explaining the methodology of creating the digital models themselves (e.g. acquisition strategy, source data, raw data preprocessing, processing, registration, assessment, data reliability, etc.).
Some typos:
- Line 92: “…tourism attraction 1994” should be “tourism attraction in 1994”;
- Please, respect the spacing between paragraphs (lines 118, 202, 256, 290);
- Some texts appear to be typed in grey instead of black (lines 386-390);
- Line 619: please explain acronyms (in this case BCR and FAR) the first time are used.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
On behalf of my co-author, thank you very much for this significant reviewing effort.
Your suggestions are highly appreciated.
Best regards,
Naai-Jung Shih
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper employs GIS and AR to assess the historical evolvement of the inner harbor area of Keelung by hydrogeography, urban architecture, and railroad infrastructure. The paper is technically well written.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
On behalf of my co-author, thank you very much for this significant reviewing effort.
Your suggestions are highly appreciated.
Best regards,
Naai-Jung Shih
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The aim of the research is very interesting and actual, and the research design is creative and original, considering its goal of joining the use of digital documentation and representation techniques with the analysis and interpretation of urban developments.
I suggest improving the material and methods section regarding the methods from remote sensing and the development of 3D data used to set the background for the comparison of urban evolvement features. In particular, the description of the method for AR-based interactions (mentioned in the section Results) is not clearly presented. I strongly suggest completing the paper by extending the methods within the Augment platform, or it may appear as if some experimental actions are missing.
In line 243 it seems to be a typo: "ascending or ascending trends" probably is "ascending or descending trends".
Considering Figure 9, it is not clear how these results have been obtained. I suggest, in general, extending the description of methods in the integration of remote sensing and archival data for the development of the GIS database.
Figure 11 is not understandable.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
On behalf of my co-author, thank you very much for this significant reviewing effort.
Your suggestions are highly appreciated.
Best regards,
Naai-Jung Shih
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper can be accepted in the present form, the suggestions provided within the review have been applied.
