Landscape Sensitizing through Expansive Learning in Architectural Education

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors

Many thanks for addressing the feedback sent. The overall quality of the manuscript has improved significantly. It is an interesting piece that brings cultural landscapes together with indigenous practices. A great piece of reference for the landscape architecture education. I’m happy for this article to be published.

Kind regards

Author Response

• We are glad that our document fill your expectations, we will be happy as well when this paper will be publish.

Reviewer 2 Report

First, I would like to thank the authors for the attached letter, it benefited  a lot in this review. Paper still lacks structure and clarity.

Teaching subject is very important issue especially within the field of landscape (architecture). Still, I miss a review of the state and role of landscape architecture programme in the research issues. Authors have mentioned something about the LA education in paragraph (lines 181-187) but the purpose of the stated is not clear for reader. Please elaborate more and put in context. It is much more clearly explained in the first part of conclusion. 

Please reconsider the bolded phrase in lines 178-179. Can authors really claim that? If so, please add some evidence or reference.

Please explain why authors consider the landscape of Tochimilco as vulnerable? (line 194) Is there a threat of aggressive urban planning or some other possible change? How authors define vulnerability at all?

Results and discussion/Conclusions and recommendations are both clear and simple. 

Author Response

“Teaching subject is very important issue especially within the field of landscape (architecture). Still, I miss a review of the state and role of landscape architecture programme in the research issues.”

• From line 185 we added when landscape architecture studies began in Mexico and why they are not entirely successful comparing to other areas from the profession.

“Authors have mentioned something about the LA education in paragraph (lines 181-187) but the purpose of the stated is not clear for reader. Please elaborate more and put in context. It is much more clearly explained in the first part of conclusion.” 

• In lines 187-201, we described some important information to clarify why architectural studies are not so strong for the profession and why we are reinforcing it at our curricula from our university.

“Please reconsider the bolded phrase in lines 178-179. Can authors really claim that? If so, please add some evidence or reference.”

• We reformulate the phrase according to the Mexican context; we hope that is clearer now.

“Please explain why authors consider the landscape of Tochimilco as vulnerable? (Line 194) Is there a threat of aggressive urban planning or some other possible change? How authors define vulnerability at all?”

• In lines 317-327, we add some bullet points to explain why Tochimilco´s landscape is a vulnerable ecosystem, especially regarding its water resources. Hope it is clearer for our international readers. Thanks for the observation.

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript has been resubmitted and improved. The article deals with a remarkably interesting topic, namely the landscape sensitizing trough expansive learning in architectural education. This is a very interesting issue in an architect´s formation. The introduction section presents a good literature review and locates relatively well the work within the territorial planning framework. The article describes well the methodology. The work is well written and now better structured. The results are consistent and represent a contribution to a better knowledge. But the manuscript still lacks of a final revision because there is a lack of consistent formatting (table 1 is extended throughout pp. 8-10, lines 350-351 and should be condensed in one page). The conclusions and recommendations are very extensive. Some of the information should be separated from the conclusions. Thus, the recommendations should go to the discussion and results section. The work is publishable, but it still needs some improvements before to be accepted. In my opinion the article can be accepted if the final text and layout revision is taken into consideration. Such issues can easily be overcome by the authors.

Author Response

"But the manuscript still lacks of a final revision because there is a lack of consistent formatting (table 1 is extended throughout pp. 8-10, lines 350-351 and should be condensed in one page).”

• We made more compact the table 1 to fit in one page.

“The conclusions and recommendations are very extensive. Some of the information should be separated from the conclusions. Thus, the recommendations should go to the discussion and results section.”

• As it was suggested we moved the final recommendations into the discussion section, it was a good observation, now the text is more congruent. With this, the conclusion section is not so large.