A Study of Historical Urban Landscape Layering in Luoyang Based on Historical Map Translation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper explores the historic urban landscape in China using Luoyang as an example. The study built an urban historical axis of the city using historical maps of the city facilitated by GIS and spatial analysis. The paper is of significant novelty by layering out the historical urban morphology of the city, which provides an interesting angle for understanding and planning the city. The paper is structured well, the methodology is clear, the results are discussed well. It is recommended publish after the following improvements:

1) the language of the paper needs to be polished. There are some language errors and grammar issues. For instance, line 20 should be human and nature, line 132 should be With instead of The With, line 145 should be map retrieved not map retriever

2) please add north arrows and scale to the result maps also add a location map to show international readers where is the city

3) please add unit to the figure 9. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you for your comments concerning our manuscript entitled “A study of historical urban landscape layering in Luoyang based on historical map translations” (ID: land-2256167). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing: (The reviewer comments are laid out below in italicized font and specific concerns have been numbered. Our response is given in normal font. )

 

1.Response to comment: the language of the paper needs to be polished. There are some language errors and grammar issues. For instance, line 20 should be human and nature, line 132 should be With instead of The With, line 145 should be map retrieved not map retriever.

Response: Thanks for your careful checks. We are sorry for our carelessness. Based on your comments, we have made the corrections to the language errors and grammar issues. We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes to the manuscript. Moreover, we used the English polish service provided by MDPI. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. And we hope the revised manuscript could be acceptable for you.

 

2.Response to comment: please add north arrows and scale to the result maps also add a location map to show international readers where is the city.

Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestions on the content of the images. We have added the compass and scale to the corresponding map images. We have also added the city location map of Luoyang in Figure 1. In addition, the quality of all images has been optimized, and some images of low quality have been removed.

 

3.Response to comment: please add unit to the figure 9.

Response: Thanks for your suggestion. The revision for Figure 9 is to add three different periods of kernel density analysis maps, because the unit of arcgis workspace is set to meters, so the output phase element of kernel density analysis is in square meters, and the unit has been marked in the legend.

 

We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. And here we did not list the changes but marked in yellow in revised paper.

We appreciate for Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.

Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Overall, I think the paper could be publishable because the content is interesting and sufficiently developed. However, there are three issues that I would like to point out:

1. The formal aspect of the paper needs to be revised. Not only a revision of the language which, although grammatically correct, is sometimes expressed in a convoluted and unusual way. Directly in the abstract we have the confusing and redundant expression "laminates the laminate process". It is also necessary to ensure that all the requirements of inclusive language are met. The expression "the relationship between man and nature", which uses "man" instead of "human being", is very outdated. There are also typos (i.e. L (??) is based on factor stratification).

2. Although the paper argues for research with a multitude of techniques and methods, the manner in which it is presented focuses too much on the findings of the specific case study and too little on describing these methods sufficiently. This compromises the interest of the study because, while it appears that the methodology used is convenient and interesting, the authors do not provide sufficient detail on the methodological process. I suggest de-emphasising the case study to some extent in order to give more weight to information that will facilitate the reader's possible replication of the study or parts of it. 

3. The graphical level of the figures is a little below what might be expected in research of this nature. There is a general feeling that the cartographic methods described are more interesting than the results obtained, so more work should be done on the images.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

 

Thank you for your comments concerning our manuscript entitled “A study of historical urban landscape layering in Luoyang based on historical map translations” (ID: land-2256167). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. In this revised version, changes to our manuscript were all highlighted within the document by using yellow-colored text. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing: (The reviewer comments are laid out below in italicized font and specific concerns have been numbered. Our response is given in normal font. )

 

1. Response to comment: The formal aspect of the paper needs to be revised. Not only a revision of the language which, although grammatically correct, is sometimes expressed in a convoluted and unusual way. Directly in the abstract we have the confusing and redundant expression "laminates the laminate process". It is also necessary to ensure that all the requirements of inclusive language are met. The expression "the relationship between man and nature", which uses "man" instead of "human being", is very outdated. There are also typos (i.e. L (??) is based on factor stratification).

Response: We sincerely thank you for careful reading. According to your suggestion, we have reworked the abstract and revised some inappropriate wording and grammatical issues. Moreover, we have tried our best to polish the language in the revised manuscript. We used the English polish service provided by MDPI. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. We appreciate for your warm work earnestly and hope that the correction will meet with approval.

 

2. Response to comment: Although the paper argues for research with a multitude of techniques and methods, the manner in which it is presented focuses too much on the findings of the specific case study and too little on describing these methods sufficiently. This compromises the interest of the study because, while it appears that the methodology used is convenient and interesting, the authors do not provide sufficient detail on the methodological process. I suggest de-emphasising the case study to some extent in order to give more weight to information that will facilitate the reader's possible replication of the study or parts of it.

Response: Thanks for your reminder. Based on your comments，we have made content additions to the research methodology and analytical framework. First, the research flowchart was redrawn to include the digital translation of historical maps and the application of Gis tools. Secondly, the operational steps of historical map translation were introduced in detail, involving map selection, map alignment, and extraction and transformation of spatial elements. Thirdly, the application of Arcgis software to analyze spatial elements adds a brief introduction of the principle, the specific software operation process can be obtained from the relevant software tutorials, put into this paper will make the content too complicated, so there is not too much to add the corresponding content. Finally, the main research purpose of this paper is to extract the historical axis system through the analysis of the transformation of spatial structure in the process of urban historical landscape layering. Because Luoyang is a unique research object, the relevant case study is very important, so no content deletion is made. Previous studies on the application of historical map translation methods have focused on physical elements such as roads and nodes, and the results have only involved the recovery of urban space. In this paper, the main emphasis in the reading of historical maps is on the aspect of spatial structure, especially the change of spatial axes, which is precisely the part that has been neglected in previous studies.

 

3. Response to comment: The graphical level of the figures is a little below what might be expected in research of this nature. There is a general feeling that the cartographic methods described are more interesting than the results obtained, so more work should be done on the images.

Response: We sincerely appreciate the valuable comments. In our resubmitted manuscript, all images have been adjusted and optimized accordingly, and worse quality images have been removed. In particular, changes were made to Figures 7, 8, 9 and 11. Figure 7, 8 adjusted the color scheme and line expression of the map. Figure 9 adds the kernel density analysis maps of historical landscape nodes from three different periods. Figure 11 adds the spatial imagery schematic mapping in addition to adjusting the color scheme and linear expression.

 

We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. We appreciate for Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.

Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

A thorough revision of the form of the text as well as its content is considered necessary. The text is vague in its content and results.

The figures, as they are necessary for the definition of the methodology and results, must be graphically elaborated. Right now they are simply copy-paste.

The bibliography is meagre and does not include all the texts needed to deal with the subject.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

 

Thank you for your comments concerning our manuscript entitled “A study of historical urban landscape layering in Luoyang based on historical map translations” (ID: land-2256167). We feel great thanks for your professional review work on our article. As you are concerned, there are several problems that need to be addressed. According to your nice suggestions, we have made extensive corrections to our previous draft, the detailed corrections are listed below. (The reviewer comments are laid out below in italicized font and specific concerns have been numbered. Our response is given in normal font. )

 

1.Response to comment: A thorough revision of the form of the text as well as its content is considered necessary. The text is vague in its content and results.

Response: We sincerely appreciate the valuable comments.  We have tried our best to polish the language in the revised manuscript. We used the English polish service provided by MDPI. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. We appreciate for your warm work earnestly and hope that the correction will meet with approval.

 

2.Response to comment: The figures, as they are necessary for the definition of the methodology and results, must be graphically elaborated. Right now they are simply copy-paste.

Response: We sincerely appreciate the valuable comments. In our resubmitted manuscript, all images have been adjusted and optimized accordingly, and worse quality images have been removed.

 

3.Response to comment: The bibliography is meagre and does not include all the texts needed to deal with the subject.

Response: We sincerely appreciate the valuable comments. We have checked the literature carefully and added more references on 38 and 44 into the MATERIALS AND METHODS part in the revised manuscript.

 

We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. And here we did not list the changes but marked in yellow in revised paper. If there are any other modifications we could make, we would like very much to modify them and we really appreciate your help.

We appreciate for Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.

Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I am grateful for the letter of reply to the authors. The text has been improved and the changes have been addressed. I suggest a final careful revision to correct minor errors of expression. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you for your comments concerning our manuscript entitled “A study of historical urban landscape layering in Luoyang based on historical map translations” (ID: land-2256167).

Thank you very much for your recognition of my revision work, and We will try to correct minor errors in expression as much as possible in the next proofreading process. We appreciate for Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.

Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

We are pleased to note a substantial evolution of the article in which both the form of the text and the grammar and syntax have been revised. Yet, we feel, that before eventual publication the authors should have the article revised by a native speaker.

The figures have been reproduced and show a marked improvement, yet we consider that, as necessary tools for understanding the text (both in its methodology and results), they need to be further addressed.

An example of this is Figure 2, in which the overlapping of white squares with non-English-translated wording makes reading and interpreting the data difficult. Furthermore, it is unclear why one area is chosen and not both, see figure next to the geographical location.

Furthermore, Table 1 is not clear. What do the horizontal lines correspond to? How do they read horizontally? If it is a timeline, it should show the urban evolution of each of the areas depicted. Similar reasoning can be applied to Table 2.

Figure 5 is interesting and as it represents the 'heart' of the research it should be better treated through the representation techniques that different schools of urban morphology over the years have decoded. Reasoning that similarly can be applied to figure 6 and 7.

It is not clear how, afterwards, they go on to figure 8 and 9 and what the contribution to the article is. I think the authors are putting too many topics together, thus causing confusion to the reader. Certainly much of the data present can and should be used in other articles.

The authors are therefore advised to 1. review the form of the text 2. decide which topics are strictly necessary for the article and outline a coherent methodology 3. finally, as representation is an essential part of the methodology, review the representations (both in content and form). 

The inconsistencies described above coincide in equal measure with the difficulties/concerns encountered when reading the text.

Author Response

Please refer to the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf