Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper presents a framework for integrated evaluation (AUG) that encompasses 18 criteria across architectural, urban, and green dimensions. This framework is used to assess adaptive housing interventions in urban heritage contexts. The framework is based on resilience theory and considers urban living and sustainable urban futures. Drawing from various sources, the paper presents it and illustrates its application through a case study of the UNESCO-listed city of Damascus. It traces the historical and contemporary design influences that have shaped urban housing, investigating strategies to maintain housing identity. The AUG framework methodology is applied to three representative dwellings in Damascus in particular.

The paper's significance lies in its advancement of multiple-criteria tools. Despite the methodological advances of the multiple available tools, significant gaps remain in evaluation frameworks in terms of historic urban housing contexts. Tools often see heritage and housing as rivals, when they should be seen as complementary. In addition, there is an absence of standardised criteria within current frameworks for evaluating the incorporation of environmental performance and social considerations. sustainability and cultural continuity within heritage contexts.

Although the research design is straightforward, doubts are generated about the whole research due to the unclear explanation of the results. The text in the 'Results' boxes in Figures 4, 5 and 6 appears to be either mismatched or incorrectly copied and pasted. Allocating more space to the sixth paragraph would improve the presentation and provide stronger support for the conclusions.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English text must undergo thorough review, with any errors identified and corrected. Some sentences are repeated, and errors appear in phrase construction, punctuation, and orthography.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your constructive feedback. I have carefully reviewed all your comments and made substantial revisions to address each concern and doubt. Below is my detailed response to your specific comments:

COMMENT 1: [Although the research design is straightforward, doubts are generated about the whole research due to the unclear explanation of the results].

RESPONSE 1: [I appreciate this helpful feedback. I have reconfigured the final result section and strengthened it to match the argument throughout the manuscript]. I found this really important. [I reorganized the Results section by: (1) separating Results from Discussion as recommended, (2) adding descriptive subheadings for each case study, (3) Presented findings systematically – Each subsection now clearly states the AUG score, performance level, and key descriptive findings, and (4) Clarified comparative findings subsection, that discusses the 85-point performance gap and its significance]. This can be found updated on page 29-30, 6. Results: lines 543 to 601. 

COMMENT 2: [The text in the 'Results' boxes in Figures 4, 5, and 6 appears to be either mismatched or incorrectly copied and pasted.].

RESPONSE 2: [I sincerely apologize for this error.] I have addressed the issue by [Verifying all figure results – Ensured that text in Results boxes for Figures/tables 4, 5, and 6 now matches exactly with the numerical AUG scores and narrative descriptions in the Results section]. This can be found updated on pages 24, 26, and 28, lines 540 to 543.

COMMENT 3: [Allocating more space to the sixth paragraph would improve the presentation and provide stronger support for the conclusions.].

RESPONSE 3: [I have substantially expanded the concluding paragraph of the Results section and restructured the entire ending to provide stronger analytical support. Improvements include: Expanded Results conclusion – Added detailed discussion (connecting the findings to broader theoretical implications), Enhanced Discussion section ( Deepened engagement with existing literature) Strengthened Conclusions section (with a statement of research limitations, Strategic vision statement, and future path). This can be found updated on page 29, 30, and 31, lines 543 to 645.

COMMENT 4: [The English text must undergo a thorough review, with any errors identified and corrected. Some sentences are repeated, and errors appear in phrase construction, punctuation, and orthography].

RESPONSE 4: [I revised the whole manuscript and did my best in fixing errors, in repetition, punctuation, and pronunciation, and reconstructed sentences to be clearer. (for example: These results are because it was driven by..." → "This performance reflects). Complete manuscript revision with changes highlighted (all major revisions tracked)

Sincerely,

Haik Tomajian

Marcell Breuer Doctoral School,

Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology

University of Pécs

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript integrates knowledge from multiple disciplines including architecture, urban planning, sociology, and environmental science to propose a comprehensive AUG (Architectural-Urban-Green) assessment framework. This framework encompasses 18 criteria across three dimensions—architectural, urban, and green—enabling a holistic evaluation of adaptive housing interventions within an urban heritage context. It not only addresses the preservation of the physical environment but also incorporates factors of social, economic, and cultural sustainability, demonstrating considerable innovation and practical utility.

However, the following issues still need to be addressed:

1. Image issues:

Certain images appear blurred, such as Figures 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, and 11. Some images are incomplete, while others feature illegible small text, impairing readability. Additionally, Figure 11 lacks a scale bar, and Figure 13 omits both a scale bar and a compass rose.

2. Materials and Methods：

The manuscript lacks a clear exposition of the research framework, methodology, technical approach, and data sources. The evaluation framework also fails to provide detailed explanations regarding the rationale for selecting evaluation indicators, the weighting allocation method, and the basis for categorizing evaluation criteria. This may hinder readers' comprehensive understanding of the assessment system's logical construction and scientific rigour, thereby affecting their judgement of the research findings' credibility.

3. Discussion: The research lacks sufficient depth; the findings of this study should be compared and discussed alongside relevant research by other scholars.
4. Conclusion: The content is incomplete, lacking an explanation of the limitations of this study and a prospect for future research.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for recognizing the AUG framework's interdisciplinary contributions and for this critical review. I have carefully addressed all the concerns regarding introduction, image quality, methodology clarity, discussion depth, and conclusions. Below is my detailed response:

COMMENT 1: [Certain images appear blurred, such as Figures 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, and 11. Some images are incomplete, while others feature illegible small text, impairing readability. Additionally, Figure 11 lacks a scale bar, and Figure 13 omits both a scale bar and a compass rose.]

RESPONSE 1: [I apologize for the image quality issues.] I have addressed the concerns [Upscaled and enlarged figure 1 to be clearer, enlarged and sharpened figure 2, to be clearer, and enlarged figure 3 to have the incriments readable., Figures 4, 5, and 9 (previously 8) are larger and sharper, previously figure 11 (now 12) is crisper and readable with added scale bar, figure 15 (previously 13) now has a scalebar and a compass rose]. The updates can be found highlighted in the manuscript on pages: p 6 line 253, p 7 line 263,  p8 line 296, p15 line 279, p16 line 286, p19 line 464, p21 line 502, p22 line 529.

COMMENT 2: [The manuscript lacks a clear exposition of the research framework, methodology, technical approach, and data sources. The evaluation framework also fails to provide detailed explanations regarding the rationale for selecting evaluation indicators, the weighting allocation method, and the basis for categorizing evaluation criteria. This may hinder readers' comprehensive understanding of the assessment system's logical construction and scientific rigour, thereby affecting their judgement of the research findings' credibility.]

RESPONSE 2: [This was a critical issue, and I have comprehensively revised both Section 2 (Materials and Methods) and Section 4 (The AUG Evaluation Framework) to provide the clarification needed]. I addressed these issues through:

[1. Materials and Methods (Section 2) improvements:

The research framework structure is clearer now and explains the AUG Compass development and application process. The Case study choices detail the chronological progression, which enables comparative analysis of design evolution across areas. Data sources explicitly specify historical documents, academic literature, and visual documentation, with their roles in the development of the tool.

2. AUG Framework (Section 4) enhancements:

Indicator selection rationale – Each of the 18 criteria is now explicitly linked to theoretical foundations:

Architectural criteria grounded in Ring's urban living theory, Schneider & Till's adaptability principles, and heritage conservation guidelines

Urban criteria operationalize LAND's and Lynch's urban vitality frameworks, plus Ring's adaptive housing theory

Green criteria integrate Passive House standards and UN-Habitat sustainability goals

Weighting allocation justification – New subsection (4.1) explains:

Equal weighting reason: 120 points per dimension (A, U, G), and the formation of the 360 radar chart tool (compass). With the rationale of Housing resilience and how it requires simultaneous excellence across all three dimensions, and why optimizing single dimensions (density alone, energy efficiency alone) produces documented failures.

New subsection (4.2) details the scoring method, the 20-point scoring scale for each criterion. Performance thresholds (0-20 points = 0-100%) Assessment benchmarking over international standards]

All these modifications can be found updated and highlighted in the manuscript on the pages: p 2, lines 69 to 112, p 8, lines 299 to 347.

COMMENT 3: [The research lacks sufficient depth; the findings of this study should be compared and discussed alongside relevant research by other scholars]

RESPONSE 3: [I have substantially expanded Section 7 (Discussion), separated from Results for clarity, with rigorous scholarly engagement]. This was addressed by  [Comparative analysis of the findings, Regional specificity discussion, and Explicit discussion of how AUG and advances beyond conventional metrics that measure single dimensions. Discussion now also clarifies: Where this research fits within heritage-based continuously inhabited cities, how it extends existing adaptive housing theory.] These modifications can be found updated in detail and highlighted in the manuscript on pages: p 29 and p30  Lines 543-602

COMMENT 4: [Conclusion: The content is incomplete, lacking an explanation of the limitations of this study and a prospect for future research.]

RESPONSE 4: [I have expanded Section 8 (Conclusions) to address research limitations and propose specific future research directions.] These modifications can be found updated in detail and highlighted in the manuscript on the  pages p30 and 31, Lines 602-645.

Sincerely,

Haik Tomajian

Marcell Breuer Doctoral School,

Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology,

University of Pécs

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper develops a multi criteria assessment framework for housing adaption and applies it to three case study buildings from different eras in Damascus. It aims to integrate, heritage, sustainability and building accessibility and adaptiveness into a single score. There are interesting concepts in this paper the framework created could be valuable. However there are a number of challenges with the details and the method that need to be addressed and it would also benefit from a careful proofread to improve the use of language and improve the sentence structure. 

Major comments 

1. The research questions provided in the introduction are not answered in this study and do not seem to be appropriate for what the paper can do, except perhaps the third one. The paper does not currently highlight priority zones or interventions or suggest policy incentives. What it does do is create a framework/tool and uses it to assess three case studies but recommendations or suggestions for future actions are not developed in any detail. The research questions need reformulating to focus more on the creation of the framework and its initial testing through the case studies.

2. The paper would benefit from some additional references, particularly in the introduction and materials and methods section as well as in a few other places where key claims are made (see specific comments below for examples). This would help to support the points being made. 

3. More details and justification are required on how the scoring within the AUG framework is decided upon for each case. Some of the categories are quantitative but some are qualitative and subjective and it is not clear how they are assessed or assigned a numeric value. Often in multi criteria assessments a panel of experts is used to help identify how different factors should be weighed and how scores should be assigned. This may not be required but more detail and examples of how scores were assessed for each sub criteria is definitely needed to make the method clear and address questions about how it can be consistently applied. 

4. The results sections in Tables 4 to 6 do not make sense or agree with the text in the Results and discussion section, please revise carefully. Table 4 states that 210 is considered a low score and says that it relates to the transitional typology. Table 5 says that 150 is a ‘good’ score. And Table 6 says that the score in points is 125 then the results text says that 255 is consider good and then the text repeats that from table 5. This really needs fixing as this key to the results of the paper. Overall more detail is required about how the scores were arrived out for each of the case studies showing the path between the criteria and the final score for each building more clearly. Some of this could be done in a supplementary file if space constraints are a problem but the overall issue needs clearly addressing in the main paper. Also give thought as to whether multiple tables is the best way of presenting this information, because they come one after another it can make it harder for the reader. 

5. The results and discussion section and conclusion need to be revised in view of what the case studies actually find. The discussion states that:

'This research shows that typologies rooted in contextual heritage and proactive adaptability can achieve the necessary levels of resilience that is severely needed for Damascus’s future. This highlights the need for comprehensive special and contextual aware strategies that the AUG Compass pointed out (reducing scale, introducing mixed-use and community facilities, integrating renewable energy and water-management systems, enhancing spatial flexibility…. etc.) to transform existing urban housing into a resilient, multi-generational one.'

However this was not clear to a reader from the findings of the case studies. They were more presenting a summary of the current state of these buildings as assessed using the AUG framework, rather than providing clear and explicit suggestions on how these can be improved. It may be that one of the key findings of the paper is that the older, traditional heritage courtyard house in fact performs better in the framework assessment than the more modern buildings and that a discussion of why this is the case could be interesting and worthwhile. Careful revision is needed to make sure that the discussion and conclusion are fully supported by the results of the study. These sections would also probably benefit from a limitations and further work section. 

Specific comments

Lines 13-14: ‘This study introduces an integrated evaluation framework (AUG)’. What does the acronym AUG stand for? This needs to be included in full. 

Lines 37-39: ‘Housing sector considered the most important…’ this sentence would benefit from a reference. 

Lines 45-47: ‘Oldest continuously inhabited…’ again would benefit from a reference. 

Lines 68-69: ‘presenting a comprehensive evaluation framework known as the Architectural-Urban-Green (AUG) compass.’ please clarify that this tool is specifically developed in the paper as it is currently unclear in this sentence which is the first introduction to it.

Line 87: ‘works of Lynch (1960), Kristin Ring (2017) and LAND (2024) which contribute to the theoretical basis.’ should these works be referenced here?

Line 244 Figure 1: it would be great if the figure could be a bit larger so that the text at the edges of the compass was readable. 

Line 278-280: ‘The AUG framework represents a methodologically sophisticated approach that builds upon established academic traditions in 360-degree Three-Dimensional Assess- ment Model (fig 3), multilayered evaluation analysis’ It would be helpful to have a reference or two to support this sentence. 

Lines 371-373: ‘The importance of the privacy factor can be seen in the entrance, the separation in circulation of residents and visitors, and the separation between the sexes within the residence.’ This sentence would benefit from either a little more expansion e.g how is the circulation of residents and visitors separated? Or ideally from a figure of an example floor plan to help illustrate this point. 

Line 389: ‘(cars and trams fig 6).’ It appears that this should be fig 7? 

Table 6: Materials section: This is a replica of the materials section in Table 5 and needs to be changed. 

I hope that these comments are useful to you if you revise the paper. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The paper would benefit from a careful proofread to enhance the quality of the sentence structure and identify typos and grammatical challenges. In particular quite a lot of sentences are continuations of the previous sentence and would be better either with commas or phrased differently. For example: 

Lines 75-78 'The research applies its proposed framework tool on 3 case studies—one being a UNESCO-recognized sample from the Old City of Damascus—and demonstrates how important a multi-criteria evaluation is to achieve urban resilience, striking a balance between contemporary facilities and the respect of the urban heritage. Supporting the point that integrating historical aspects into modern planning enhances community identity and livability.'

Could be rephrased as 'This provides support to the concept that integrating historical aspects into modern planning enhances community identity and livability.'

Another example is: 

Lines 283-285: 'It reveals the capacity of a housing project to become more suitable for contemporary and future urban living. Utilizing a 0-100% scale with 25% incremental thresholds.'

In this example the fullstops after 'urban, living' could be replaced with a comma. Or if the fullstops remains rephrase as, 'this tool utilizes' 

There are also a number of capitalisations of random words that would be helpful to remove. Some specific comments are included below. 

Specific comments

Lines 51-53: ‘As Lynch’s theory of urban form and image suggests, visible historical features enhance spatial legibility and contribute to a stronger sense of place, which contribute to a stronger sense of place [1]’ repetition needs removing. 

Line 85: delete ‘topic’

Lines 179-180 ‘Rings’ workshop shows that Innovative and unique approaches, and rethought arrangements, such as integrated living concepts that combine housing with workspaces, or other shared amenities, and green infrastructure, support and insure sustainable and socially inclusive living [14].’ Is workshop the correct term, toolbox was used earlier? Also ‘Innovative’ doesn’t need a capital letter and ‘insure’ should be ‘ensure’

Line 230: ‘framework that systematically comparing alternatives to multiple heritage’ Should be ’systematically compares’ 

Line 265: ‘These strategies are based on the workshop of K. Ring,’ workshop is mentioned again here, if this is correct it might need a bit more introduction in the earlier section. 

Lines: 314-316 ‘This multi-context application illustrates that the AUG framework approach while preserving the necessary flexibility for effective evaluation across the diverse range of urban housing scenarios found throughout the world.’ Please rephrase this sentence to make the meaning clearer. 

Line 349 ‘as both are still one of the oldest’ should be ‘still some of… ‘

Lines 361-363: ‘That made the buildings connect to each other with harmony and form a unique background image for it (Hinterland) creating the unique image of the city (fig 6). ‘ Please rephrase this sentence to make the meaning clearer, what is the word ‘hinterland’ doing?

Lines 379-381: ‘Following the end of the Ottoman Colonization, various economic, social, and political changes that happened. That affected the structure and formation of families in Syria due to the move to live in new neighbourhoods’ Removing the two ‘that’s and combining these sentence would read more clearly. For example ‘Following the end of the Ottoman Colonization, various economic, social, and political changes happened which affected the structure and formation of families in Syria due to the move to live in new neighbourhoods

Line 443: ‘These new planned areas where different than what Damascus was known for’ this should be ‘were’ different rather than ‘where’ 

Lines 489-491: ‘Beit Nizam’s traditional courtyard form achieves the highest adaptability score (65%), and it is built since the last century.’ please clarify ‘and it is built since the last century’ means, surely this is the oldest building? Or does this mean that it has had work done to it since the last century?

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

Thank you for your thorough and constructive review. I appreciate your recognition of the framework and your valuable feedback. I have carefully addressed all your major concerns regarding research questions, references, scoring methodology, results clarity, and language quality. I have updated the manuscript and highlighted the modifications. Below is my detailed response:

COMMENT 1: [The research questions provided in the introduction are not answered in this study and do not seem to be appropriate for what the paper can do, except perhaps the third one. The paper does not currently highlight priority zones or interventions or suggest policy incentives. What it does do is create a framework/tool and uses it to assess three case studies but recommendations or suggestions for future actions are not developed in any detail. The research questions need reformulating to focus more on the creation of the framework and its initial testing through the case studies.

RESPONSE 1: [I have substantially revised the research questions in the Introduction to align with what the paper actually accomplishes. The reformulated questions now focus on: Framework development, Initial Evaluation, and weighting methods.] p 2 LINE 63

COMMENT 2: [The paper would benefit from some additional references, particularly in the introduction and materials and methods section as well as in a few other places where key claims are made (see specific comments below for examples). This would help to support the points being made].

RESPONSE 2: [I have added supporting references throughout: Introduction: Added citations supporting housing sector importance and Damascus heritage significance, Materials and Methods: Added references for research framework and key claims, and added.  Manuscript Location: Introduction line 39 and 48, Materials and Methods lines 90 and 97, and throughout the manuscript where claims are made (references highlighted).]

COMMENT 3: [ More details and justification are required on how the scoring within the AUG framework is decided upon for each case. Some of the categories are quantitative but some are qualitative and subjective and it is not clear how they are assessed or assigned a numeric value. Often in multi criteria assessments a panel of experts is used to help identify how different factors should be weighed and how scores should be assigned. This may not be required but more detail and examples of how scores were assessed for each sub criteria is definitely needed to make the method clear and address questions about how it can be consistently applied.]

RESPONSE 3: [This was a critical issue, and I have revised in Section 4 (The AUG Evaluation Framework) to provide a better clarification]. I addressed these issues through the AUG Framework (Section 4) enhancements:

Indicator selection rationale – Each of the 18 criteria is now explicitly linked to theoretical foundations

Weighting allocation justification – New subsection (4.1) explains: Equal weighting reason: 120 points per dimension (A, U, G), and the formation of the 360 radar chart tool (compass). With the rationale of Housing resilience and how it requires simultaneous excellence across all three dimensions, and why optimizing single dimensions (density alone, energy efficiency alone) produces documented failures.

New subsection (4.2) details the scoring method, the 20-point scoring scale for each criterion. Explaining thresholds and benchmarking.

All these modifications can be found updated and highlighted in the manuscript on the pages: p 8, lines 299 to 347.

COMMENT 4:  [The results sections in Tables 4 to 6 do not make sense or agree with the text in the Results and discussion section. Please revise carefully. Table 4 states that 210 is considered a low score and says that it relates to the transitional typology. Table 5 says that 150 is a ‘good’ score. And Table 6 says that the score in points is 125 then the results text says that 255 is consider good and then the text repeats that from table 5. This really needs fixing as this key to the results of the paper. Overall more detail is required about how the scores were arrived out for each of the case studies showing the path between the criteria and the final score for each building more clearly. Some of this could be done in a supplementary file if space constraints are a problem but the overall issue needs clearly addressing in the main paper. Also give thought as to whether multiple tables is the best way of presenting this information, because they come one after another it can make it harder for the reader]

RESPONSE 4: [I apologize for these mistakes. I have corrected all table errors: Table 4, 5,: Now correctly show scores aligned with text, with updated results and deeper analysis Table 6: Replaced duplicate Materials section with correct Tijara Tower data]. (updated in manuscript on pages (23-28).

COMMENT 5: [The results and discussion section and conclusion need to be revised in view of what the case studies actually find]

RESPONSE 5: [I have thoroughly revised the (Discussion and Conclusion) sections, and removed unsupported claims and refocused the discussion on what the case studies actually demonstrate.] Section 7 (Discussion) is expanded and separated from Results for clarity, with rigorous scholarly engagement. This was addressed by  [Comparative analysis of the findings, Regional specificity discussion, and Explicit discussion of how AUG advances beyond conventional metrics that measure single dimensions. Discussion now also clarifies: Where this research fits within heritage-based continuously inhabited cities, how it extends existing adaptive housing theory.] Section 8 (Conclusions) is also expanded to address research limitations and propose specific future research directions. These modifications can be found updated in detail and highlighted in the manuscript on pages: p 29, p. 30, and, 31, Lines from 543-602. 

COMMENT 6: [Specific Comments]

RESPONSE 6: [I appreciate the thorough attention you gave to this review. Every specific comment was valuable. I have addressed all the specific issues (e.g. fixed the abbreviations, the references, specified that the tool is developed specifically for this research, and made the figures larger). All the detailed modifications are highlighted in the manuscript. 

COMMENT 7: [Comments on the Quality of English Language]

RESPONSE 7: [I have completed language editing, addressing sentence structure, repetition, grammar, and specific technical errors.]

I am grateful for your review. Your detailed feedback significantly strengthened this research.

Sincerely and respectfully,

Haik Tomajian

Marcell Breuer Doctoral School,

Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology,

University of Pécs

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Abstract

- Remove abbreviations from the abstract and keyword.

Introduction

Traditional design elements derived from Islamic architectural
traditions, particularly Umayyad rather than Ottoman.

Methodology

The choice of criteria is appropriate for evaluating this type of research.

The results are unclear, hence the need to expand this section and the
discussion section. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your feedback and for confirming the methodological appropriateness. I have carefully addressed your comments regarding abbreviations in the abstract, historical context clarification, and results clarity. All the modifications are highlighted in the manuscript. Below is my detailed response:

COMMENT 1: [Remove abbreviations from the abstract and keywords].

RESPONSE 1: [I have removed the abbreviation from the abstract]

COMMENT 2: [Traditional design elements derived from Islamic architectural traditions, particularly Umayyad rather than Ottoman].

RESPONSE 2: [I have fixed the historical context clarity as follows: [Traditional design elements derived from vernacular and Islamic architectural traditions, particularly Umayyad]

COMMENT 2: [The results are unclear, hence the need to expand this section and the discussion section]

RESPONSE 2: [I have thoroughly revised the (Results, Discussion, and Conclusion) sections. The Results now focus on the findings of the case studies and comparative analysis results. The (Discussion) is expanded and separated from the Results for clarity. This was addressed by [Comparative analysis of the findings, Regional specificity discussion, and Explicit discussion of how AUG advances beyond conventional metrics that measure single dimensions. Discussion now also clarifies: Where this research fits within heritage-based continuously inhabited cities, how it extends existing adaptive housing theory.] Section 8 (Conclusions) is also expanded to address research limitations and propose specific future research directions. These modifications can be found updated in detail and highlighted in the manuscript on pages: p 29, p. 30, and, 31, Lines from 543-602.

Sincerely, 

Haik Tomajian

Marcell Breuer Doctoral School,

Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology,

University of Pécs

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has undergone a first round of revisions, resulting in a significant improvement in quality. Clearer additions and elaborations have been made to the literature review, research methodology, discussion, and conclusion sections. Thanks to your efforts, the article looks much better and more interesting for readers. However, the standardisation of figures requires improvement. For instance, the scales in Figure 4.b, Figure 5, Figure 12, and Figure 15 lack length units, while the scale in Figure 9 remains unclear.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

I would like to sincerely thank you for your constructive and insightful feedback on this manuscript. Your comments have been instrumental in helping improve the quality of the work, particularly in refining the literature review, research methodology, discussion, and conclusion sections. I truly appreciate your recognition of the improvements made and your kind words regarding the enhanced clarity and interest of the article.

COMMENT 1: [The standardisation of figures requires improvement. For instance, the scales in Figure 4.b, Figure 5, Figure 12, and Figure 15 lack length units, while the scale in Figure 9 remains unclear]

RESPONSE 1: [Regarding your observation on the Standardisation of figures, I have taken steps to address them Inconsistency] [I have updated the scales in Figures 4.b, 5, 12, and 15 to include appropriate length units, and clarified the scale in Figure 9 to ensure better readability.] The updated figures can be found highlighted in the revised manuscript.

Sincerely,

Haik Tomajian

Marcell Breuer Doctoral School,

Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology,

University of Pécs,

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your work in revising this paper it is now much clearer and the methods, results and conclusions are better justified. The improvements to section 6, 7 and 8 are useful and help to improve the paper and clarify the main messages. Overall I feel that this is now a useful and interesting paper that provides a basis for further development in this area. 

I still think it would be beneficial to acknowledge that subjectiveness in the application of the AUG framework is a potential limitation to the research and scores are partially dependent on how aspects are interpreted by the user of the tool. Perhaps a sentence on this could be added to the new limitations paragraph in the conclusions. 

Probably not to go in the paper due to space constraints (unless as a very brief mention); but it might be interesting for the authors to think about how realistic it is for some of the criteria evaluated in the tool around space flexibility and new forms of living to be 'retrofitted' in existing buildings. Given that in lines 135-136 research is cited that it is 22 times more efficient to design for adaptability rather than enacting modifications. What would be needed for the Nizam residence to achieve higher scores on these criterion for instance, and how much change, disruption, cost would be required?  

A couple of very minor comments: 

1. Figure 3 AUG compass: there is a typo in ‘energy efficiancy’ this should be ‘efficiency.’  

2. Line 319 '(e.g., Pruitt-Igoe towers)' as this is mentioned again later it would probably benefit from a reference. 

3. Line 391 : ‘ancient Damascus and Aleppo, as both still one of the oldest continuously inhabited cities.’ this needs to be ‘some of’ or ‘two of’ not ‘one’ since two cities are being referred to. 

4. Table 6 materials: ‘Soviet construction techniques was predominantly built using concrete systems combined with Hourdi blocks and reinforced concrete frames.’ This sentence is a little unclear, should it be ‘The building was constructed using soviet construction techniques and was predominantly built…’ ?

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much once again for your detailed and careful review of the manuscript. I truly appreciate your kind words regarding the improvements made, particularly in Sections 6, 7, and 8. Please find below a point to point response to your comments: 

COMMENT 1: [I still think it would be beneficial to acknowledge that subjectiveness in the application of the AUG framework is a potential limitation to the research and scores are partially dependent on how aspects are interpreted by the user of the tool. Perhaps a sentence on this could be added to the new limitations paragraph in the conclusions].

RESPONSE 1: [I have addressed this clearly now, and added the sentence to the limitations paragraph in the Conclusion section, acknowledging that subjectivity in qualitative criteria is a limitation of the AUG framework.] Highlighted in lines 632-635. 

COMMWNT 2: [Probably not to go in the paper due to space constraints (unless as a very brief mention); but it might be interesting for the authors to think about how realistic it is for some of the criteria evaluated in the tool around space flexibility and new forms of living to be 'retrofitted' in existing buildings. Given that in lines 135-136 research is cited that it is 22 times more efficient to design for adaptability rather than enacting modifications. What would be needed for the Nizam residence to achieve higher scores on these criterion for instance, and how much change, disruption, cost would be required? ]

RESPONSE 2: [I included a concise discussion in the Discussion section, explaining that achieving higher scores for for space flexibility in historic buildings like Beit Nizam would require substantial interventions, that must be balanced with heritage integrity, all new and revised sections are highlighted in the revised manuscript in lines 601-609]

COMMENT 3: [A couple of very minor comments]

RESPONSE 3: [I have also addressed the minor comments you kindly pointed out:

1. Corrected the typo in Figure 3 (“efficiancy” to “efficiency”).
2. Added a reference for the Pruitt-Igoe towers mentioned in line 319 and later.
3. Revised line 391 to read “two of the oldest continuously inhabited cities.”
4. Clarified the sentence in Table 6 to improve readability and accuracy.

All modifications are highlighted in the manuscript].

Your expertise has greatly contributed to the development of our work.

Sincerely,

Haik Tomajian

Marcell Breuer Doctoral School,

Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology,

University of Pécs,

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made the requested corrections and improved the quality of the article, its structure, methodology, results, discussion, and conclusions. I believe the article is suitable for publication in your journal.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

I hope this message finds you well.

Thank you very much for your thoughtful and encouraging feedback. I truly appreciate the time and effort you dedicated to reviewing this work . Your comments contributed to improving the quality of the paper, and I am pleased to hear that you find it suitable for publication.

It was a pleasure to have your insights throughout the review process.

Sincerely,

Haik Tomajian

Marcell Breuer Doctoral School,

Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology,

University of Pécs,