Analyses of the Spatial Morphology of Traditional Yunnan Villages Utilizing Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Remote Sensing

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Dear Authors,

I would like to thank the researchers for their meticulous and precise note processing. However, I regret to inform that the following reference access was not possible: Pu Xincheng, Wang Yingjia, and Huang Qian. "The Quantitative Method of Obtaining the Boundary Morphology of Rural Settlements." Journal of Architecture & Culture, vol. 12, no. 067, 2020, doi:10.19875/j.cnki.joy.2020.12.067.

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewers,

We extend our heartfelt gratitude for the insightful feedback provided on our manuscript. The constructive remarks have significantly enlightened our understanding and triggered a thoughtful refinement of our work. Following your suggestions, we have diligently revised our paper to enhance its quality and coherence.

Your scholarly rigor reflected through the comments has not only enriched our paper but also exemplified the essence of academic excellence. We aspire that the revisions conducted will align with your expectations and elevate the manuscript to a level worthy of publication.

We acknowledge the boundless nature of research and the potential shortcomings in our work. The quest for knowledge is a perpetual journey, and we value this platform as a milestone for learning and improvement. Your further insights will be immensely cherished as they will guide us towards a more rigorous and impactful study.

Enclosed, you will find that in the subsequent manuscript, we have categorized and showcased the questions you raised, along with our contemplation and specific articulations in the text, highlighting the modifications made based on the reviewers' feedback. The marked manuscript is also differentiated in the main text using blue font, where highlighted sections indicate areas revised to address the specific concerns raised.

We are hopeful for your continued guidance and support, and eagerly await your valuable feedback. Our team remains committed to making meaningful contributions to the scholarly community through this research.

Thank you once again for your time and consideration.

Warm regards,

Zhang Chunming

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

I understand that addressing the comments of five reviewers must have been challenging. However, tracking these changes was quite difficult for me, as the revised version does not offer a track changes option, highlights, or even references to page and line numbers. Nevertheless, I can see significant improvement. Since it is a new submission, these are my comments.

#1 Given that “The primary objective of this study is to employ a quantitative approach in order to assess and conserve the spatial morphology of the aforementioned villages,” the absence of a figure that showcases the boundary characteristics identified through oblique photography and the presented method is striking. The paper claims this objective was achieved, but the execution is unclear. This detail is crucial because the study is multidisciplinary. People working in conservation planning who might not be versed in the specific mathematical models used here could find visual aids helpful, making the paper more accessible and applicable to a broader audience. I believe the conclusion should forge a stronger connection with this method’s potential applications in conservation and boundary protection practices.

#2 The exploration and citation of fractal theory and its utility for examining village morphology are still inadequate.

#3 Figure 2 is illegible. Although the study references five villages, only four are depicted. I recommend organizing the images vertically and dedicating a page to this, especially given it's the only visual material directly related to the paper.

#4 I am eager to see samples of the “2D plane graphs.” Could these be included as a figure in the manuscript?

#5 The emphasis on the villages being “traditional ethnic minority” raises questions about its relevance to a quantitative analysis using oblique photogrammetrics. Would the results differ if the villages were non-minority? Assertions like these require a comparative study for validation.

#6 In responding to the reviewer’s comments, the authors articulated why oblique photography is both necessary and superior to satellite imagery. However, this explanation is conspicuously absent from the manuscript. Why is that?

#7 In the discussion, the paper claims a juxtaposition with manual measurements underscores the presented method’s superiority. However, what were these manual measurement parameters? It piques interest as these measurements are only referenced once.

#8 On page 10, the assertion that “Fractal dimensions are instrumental in urban studies, allowing for the quantification of spatial patterns and complexities” needs citation.

#10 Also on page 10, the sentence “The area will become smaller and the perimeter will become longer with the constant shrinkage of virtual space” is unclear in the context of the paper.

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewers,

We extend our heartfelt gratitude for the insightful feedback provided on our manuscript. The constructive remarks have significantly enlightened our understanding and triggered a thoughtful refinement of our work. Following your suggestions, we have diligently revised our paper to enhance its quality and coherence.

Your scholarly rigor reflected through the comments has not only enriched our paper but also exemplified the essence of academic excellence. We aspire that the revisions conducted will align with your expectations and elevate the manuscript to a level worthy of publication.

We acknowledge the boundless nature of research and the potential shortcomings in our work. The quest for knowledge is a perpetual journey, and we value this platform as a milestone for learning and improvement. Your further insights will be immensely cherished as they will guide us towards a more rigorous and impactful study.

Enclosed, you will find that in the subsequent manuscript, we have categorized and showcased the questions you raised, along with our contemplation and specific articulations in the text, highlighting the modifications made based on the reviewers' feedback. The marked manuscript is also differentiated in the main text using blue font, where highlighted sections indicate areas revised to address the specific concerns raised.

We are hopeful for your continued guidance and support, and eagerly await your valuable feedback. Our team remains committed to making meaningful contributions to the scholarly community through this research.

Thank you once again for your time and consideration.

Warm regards,

Zhang Chunming

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

I would like to commend the authors for the revised version of the paper, they have increased both the quality of representation and quality of scientific soundness. 

The only concern left is the list of references that still remains very modest (Authors did not provided answer/reflection to the comment “The research would benefit by having more than one source for defining aspects – not only Xincheng's)). Although I don’t mind author decision to differentiate introduction to literature review, the introductory part is still very unfounded and arbitrary. 

Additionally, I would advise authors to exclude titles when referencing to researchers – Professor Pu Xincheng's. 

Authors should be advised to reconsider minor English editing / in the revised manuscript there are some mistakes (space after dot missing). 

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewers,

We extend our heartfelt gratitude for the insightful feedback provided on our manuscript. The constructive remarks have significantly enlightened our understanding and triggered a thoughtful refinement of our work. Following your suggestions, we have diligently revised our paper to enhance its quality and coherence.

Your scholarly rigor reflected through the comments has not only enriched our paper but also exemplified the essence of academic excellence. We aspire that the revisions conducted will align with your expectations and elevate the manuscript to a level worthy of publication.

We acknowledge the boundless nature of research and the potential shortcomings in our work. The quest for knowledge is a perpetual journey, and we value this platform as a milestone for learning and improvement. Your further insights will be immensely cherished as they will guide us towards a more rigorous and impactful study.

Enclosed, you will find that in the subsequent manuscript, we have categorized and showcased the questions you raised, along with our contemplation and specific articulations in the text, highlighting the modifications made based on the reviewers' feedback. The marked manuscript is also differentiated in the main text using blue font, where highlighted sections indicate areas revised to address the specific concerns raised.

We are hopeful for your continued guidance and support, and eagerly await your valuable feedback. Our team remains committed to making meaningful contributions to the scholarly community through this research.

Thank you once again for your time and consideration.

Warm regards,

Zhang Chunming

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Thank you for the revisions. The current manuscript shows significant improvements. 

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Editors,

Thank you for inviting me to review the paper "Analyze the Spatial Morphology of Yunnan's Traditional Villages Using UAV Remote Sensing Images." Overall, the study needs more clarity in its approach towards using Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) Remote Sensing to gain a better understanding of traditional village forms for heritage conservation and urban planning. Therefore, it is necessary to rewrite the study to clarify its general purpose and provide evidence that supports its specific value. Additionally, the paper must provide convincing evidence for UAV use as a conservation methodology in urban planning. Researchers should consider many notes before submitting their articles for publication.

First, in the literature review, remote sensing is highlighted as the primary objective. This is done with the spatial formation of traditional villages in Yunnan serving as a case study. The title needs to be rewritten.

Second, the study's objective must be clearly defined and consistent throughout the paper. Inconsistencies in the stated aim occur between the title, abstract, and introduction. The Methods section under the Data Source subchapter and the Results and Discussion sections may introduce another goal. To address this issue, researchers should identify the desired results and develop a straightforward plan that includes all the objectives they hope to achieve with this paper.

Third, to improve your introduction, it should include the motivation, significance, and benefits of your study. It lacks references, so supporting information from recent and documented sources is crucial. Additionally, it's essential to write the terms in full the first time they appear in each section, followed by their abbreviations. For instance, Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) Remote Sensing can be shortened to UAV. It's worth noting that only two references with UAV in their titles appear in the reference list. This is despite it being the primary search term.

Fourth, moving the last paragraph from the literature review to the conclusion section is preferable since it doesn't show the results. Refer to page 2, lines 77-80.

Fifth, in the Materials and Methods section, it is necessary to state why the chosen case study was selected. Discussing this case will benefit researchers globally, as the Journal of "Land" Journal has international reach. Moreover, Figure 2 needs to be clarified in the text, and the drawing should be reinterpreted to serve its intended purpose, as it is currently unclear.

Sixth, in the results section: 

What evidence supports the assertion that the traditional villages under study possess distinctive qualities?

- I didn't understand if this phrase refers to the goal or result of the study: “The exploration of the quantitative method of plane form in traditional ethnic minority villages in Yunnan is aimed at improving a quantifiable indicator scheme for morphological features shown during village construction”.

- I'm sorry, I'm not sure if there's a theory called "the theory of settlement in public space". If it exists, it hasn't been mentioned in the literature review, methods and materials sections, or the introduction. I don't know which references it uses. Can I help you with anything else?

- Shouldn't the literature review and research methods sections include fractal dimensions since they form the basis of village analysis? It was necessary to mention how fractal dimensions affect urban preservation. For the village, the current study divided the fractal dimensions into three ranges: low equal dimensions (1.0-1.1), medium comparable dimensions (1.1-1.2), and high equivalent dimensions (above 1.2).

- The researchers noted the importance of understanding traditional village forms for heritage conservation and urban planning in the abstract but did not address it in the research section.

Seventh, in the conclusion section

Seventh, in the conclusion section: 

- It is preferable to use only a few terms in the discussion section, especially if they appear outside the research, such as landscape ecology.

- Is this a newly set goal? “This research provides a robust and novel methodological lens to perceive traditional village boundaries. While challenges remain, the groundwork lays the foundation for future research.”

- Don’t use a personalized statement to introduce your research. Save it for the readers.

- I wonder if this conclusion adequately explains this study's purpose, significance, and future research.

Finally, the researchers mention in both the materials and methods section and the discussion section that their study is based on Professor Pu Xincheng's research contributions, which were published in the Journal of Architecture & Culture. Reference No. 18 is "The quantitative method of obtaining the boundary morphology of rural settlements [J]." The research project had three authors: Pu Xincheng, Wang Yingjia, and Huang Qian present this work. However, I could not locate this reference in the journal's database or any listed databases such as Scopus or Google Scholar. I even tried searching using the DOI number 10.19875/j.cnki. Joy. 2020.12.067, but to no avail. Researchers should consider citing studies with a higher H index to ensure accessibility. The researchers in this study acknowledge that their research is an extension of previous work and provide clear information about the place and year of publication for easy reference. In this regards, It is important for this study to expand its information sources beyond current scientific periodicals that are of limited relevance. We should look for other sources such as interviews with experts, first-hand accounts from those affected by the subject, and data from public records. This will provide us with a more complete picture of the issue.

Reviewer 2 Report

A map scale should be drawn on Figure 1. The numerical scale is discredited by the minimal map size correction.

It would be good to have a map of China showing the geographical location of Kun Ming City.

Why are all 5 villages not marked in Figure 1?

281 We can see - use passive voice

Interesting work.

It needs a smaller descriptive section (about villages). 

Why did the authors choose those villages?

It would bring the theme closer to non-expert readers.

On that way, the paper would be more cited.

Reviewer 3 Report

#1: The abstract is very vague and does not address any of the tangible findings of the study.

#2: The introduction does not include any citations regarding the topics it claims. This is critical because the introduction introduces a gap. It is not usual to present a gap without any connection to the existing literature.

#3: The paper talks about measuring based on “fractal theory.” However, this is the only time that this term is mentioned throughout the manuscript. If the village analysis is based on fractal theory, this theory must be properly introduced and cited. What is more, other studies that have utilized this fractal theory must be properly annotated.

#4: It is absolutely essential to have figure(s) showing the 2D plane graph. The paper does not make a visually compelling presentation of its materials. Even showing the three-tier boundary dimension estimations (if possible) would make the paper more readable and more citable. Since the paper is directly talking about morphology, village form, and boundaries, it is very unpleasant not to have any figures that express these dimensions.

#5: The paper clearly states, “Derive precise Digital Surface Model (DSM) data of traditional villages, capturing intricate spatial features often overlooked by conventional methods.” Where are the visual representations? What exactly do you mean by conventional (traditional in some other parts of the paper) methods?

#6: The Coordinate Reference System (CRS) used for the analysis needs to be properly annotated. Moreover, satellite imagery calibration (if applicable) must be briefly explained.

#7: Line 331: What does the study mean by “manual measurements”? Is GPS point reading considered a manual measurement? What are the advantages of oblique photography over multiband satellite imagery?

#8: The one upside to oblique photography might be the ability to measure the height of all structures. Was this a part of the analysis?

#9: In terms of cost, I can understand this argument if drone footage was used to map an unexplored area. Other than that, why is the method considered superior to satellite imagery (which I am sure China has in very high resolution)?"

Reviewer 4 Report

I would like to thank authors for their research and for dealing with the rural area – it is a neglected and underrepresented topic, hence I am looking forward for the new researches in the field. 

However, I would like to raise several issues and provide comments:

Introduction

Introduction is written in a  too general and broad  manner– it would benefit from the reflection on the state of the art and research gap in the field. 

It should be connected with the literature review but clearly addressing what is innovative in this research and stating research goals. 

Concluding paragraph of the introduction section should provide a brief overview of the paper. 

Methodology

Methodology is very well elaborated and detailed. However, there are few notes to be made: 

Subtitle 3.2. Data Source and content of the paragraph bellow does not match. 

It is necessary to describe the rationale for selecting this villages. 

The research would benefit by having more than one source for defining aspects – not only Xincheng's [18] research

Research

All subsections would benefit from graphical support. 

I generally have a difficulty to understand the novelty of the paper – The research would much better if it compared this kind of methodology with some others, since only then we can speak about accuracy and method applicability. With that being said, the research also misses to address domains of applicability. 

Conclusion

The conclusion would benefit from more detailed and specific reflections.

In my general opinion, paper has potential to be very valuable for the field but would need to rethought in terms of structure and results elaboration..  

The biggest concern with this paper is that most of it is left for reader to trust the author.

Reviewer 5 Report

Overall, this study presents a well-structured, methodologically sound approach to understanding the complexities of traditional village layouts in Yunnan Province. It builds a solid foundation for future research in the fields of landscape ecology, heritage conservation, and urban planning. Here are some suggestions for the author to consider to improve the quality of this work:

Introduction

Scope of Study: Your objectives are well-defined, but consider specifying the geographic scope (is it limited to Yunnan's traditional villages?) in this section for complete clarity.

You touch on the historical significance of traditional villages but could elaborate on why this makes them particularly worthy of study.

While mentioning UAV image-based oblique photography and GIS, a brief one-liner explaining what they are could make it more accessible to a broader audience.

Justification for New Methods: You mention the limitations of existing research methodologies but could offer a few more details about why UAV and GIS specifically address these limitations.

 Literature Review

While you mention the advantages of UAV and GIS, offering a balanced view by citing any criticisms or limitations noted in existing literature could add depth.

 Connection to Present Study: Make it clearer how each piece of cited work informs your study. Will you be building on these methods, contradicting them, or taking an entirely new approach?

Clarification Needed: The sentence "The complexities in their spatial morphologies demand an analytical approach that is both intricate and adaptable" is a bit vague. Maybe specify what complexities you're referring to and why they are a challenge.

Methodology

Clarification: The geographic selection criteria (climatic features, topographic and environmental features, and composition of nationalities of aborigines) could be elaborated on for why these particular features led you to choose these villages.

Make sure to tie back the cited works ([14], [15], [16], [17]) to how they specifically inform your methodology.

How does Professor Pu Xincheng's theoretical research specifically influence your method? Some elaboration would be helpful.

Results and discussions

If applicable, add figures, maps, or graphs to visually represent your findings. This can complement your quantitative data well.

While you briefly mention limitations related to traditional village settings, consider elaborating on how these limitations could affect the study's generalizability or reliability.

You mention superior accuracy compared to other methods. It might be helpful to elaborate on what these other methods are and why your method is more accurate.

The quality of writing in the manuscript varies, and there are several areas where improvement is needed for better readability and comprehension. Here are some specific areas to consider:

Complex Sentences: The manuscript sometimes uses long, complex sentences that may make it difficult for the reader to follow. Consider breaking them down into simpler sentences for clarity.

The manuscript sometimes shifts in tense and perspective. Maintaining a consistent tense and perspective throughout will improve readability.

Technical Jargon: The manuscript contains specialized terms that are not properly defined or explained. It would be helpful to define these terms when they first appear.

Transitional Phrases: The use of transitional words or phrases can make the narrative more coherent and guide the reader through your line of reasoning.

The structure of some paragraphs is a bit disorganized. Each paragraph should convey a single idea or theme, supported by sentences that elaborate on that idea.