Spatiotemporal Distribution and Adaptive Reuse Results Assessment of Beijing Industrial Heritage Based on the Sustainable Renewal Perspective

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic of industrial area reuse is highly engaging, and the research presents an interesting case study of an area in China. The study employs a solid research design, with the ARRA methodology being particularly appropriate for this context. However, I would recommend some changes to enhance the scientific quality of the manuscript.

In Section 2.3.1, consider including research questions, preferably in the final part of the section, to provide a clearer framework for the study. Additionally, in Section 2.3.3, I suggest incorporating references to other works that have used this model to strengthen the theoretical foundation.

The results are clearly and thoroughly presented; however, the analysis is not sufficiently developed in the discussion section. From my perspective, the content presented in Sections (from 4.1 to 4.4) seems closely related to Section 3.3. To improve the manuscript's structure, I recommend reorganizing these sections to create a dedicated discussion section that correlates your results with findings from other studies.

Author Response

Comments 1: In Section 2.3.1, consider including research questions, preferably in the final part of the section, to provide a clearer framework for the study.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out and we agree with this comment. Therefore, we have revised the section as suggested and have included additional analysis of research questions, “Currently, adaptive reuse of industrial heritage has problems such as emphasis on preliminary assessment and neglect of result assessment, one-sided understanding of ‘adaptive reuse’ and neglect of the balance between protection and reuse, etc., and there are also limitations in the relevant assessment of Beijing industrial heritage. The purpose of this assessment system is to construct a balanced outcome evaluation mod-el of ‘Conservation–Reuse’, to comprehensively evaluate the reuse results of Beijing industrial heritage from two dimensions and to provide decision-making data for re-lated parties.”, as detailed on the last highlighted paragraph on page 4 in Section 2.3.1.

Comments 2: Additionally, in Section 2.3.3, I suggest incorporating references to other works that have used this model to strengthen the theoretical foundation.

Response 2: Your observation is well-taken. We have added three references related to this model, namely [21,42,43], as detailed on the last line of the last paragraph on page 5 of the revised manuscript in Section 2.3.3.

Comments 3: The results are clearly and thoroughly presented; however, the analysis is not sufficiently developed in the discussion section. From my perspective, the content presented in Sections (from 4.1 to 4.4) seems closely related to Section 3.3.

Response 3: We agree with this comment. We have reorganized the discussion section in Section 4 and adapted Figure 7 from Section 3.3 to make the discussion section structurally complete, “In order to propose targeted optimization strategies for different samples of the ARRA of Beijing industrial heritage, this study applies SPSS frequency analysis and the four-quadrant model to establish a quadrant diagram of the result scores, visualizes and analyzes the results of the assessment of adaptive reuse (Figure. 7), and divides the mean of the assessment scores of all the samples into four quadrants of Ⅰ, Ⅱ, Ⅲ, and Ⅳ as a dividing line to target and put forward improvement measures.”, as detailed on the highlighted paragraph 4 on page 13.

Comments 4: To improve the manuscript's structure, I recommend reorganizing these sections to create a dedicated discussion section that correlates your results with findings from other studies.

Response 4: We agree with this comment. We have introduced [56] A UNESCO Site as a Tool to Promote Local Attractiveness: Investigating Stakeholders’ Opinions. and other relevant references to support the results analysis, as detailed on page 14, paragraph 2, lines 6.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I positively evaluate this article both for its formal characteristics and its content. This assessment is based on the following aspects:

- The study is highly original. It is important to find academic manuscripts of the quality of this article.

- This article addresses a current topic relevant to the journal's objectives and the present  special Issue "Patrimony Assessment and Sustainable Land Resource Management (Second Edition)"

- The title, abstract, and keywords clearly convey the scope of the article.

- The objectives are clearly defined.

- The sample is representative and the instruments used meet the necessary characteristics for the research proposal. I highlight the work to explain the ARRA models

 

- The results reflect the key issues required to address the research questions. They clearly demonstrate the empirical evidence related to the study's object.

- The discussion presents a good summary and diagnosis of the results obtained, but it can be improved by adding experiences, previous studies and research that reinforce the value of industrial heritage in the aspects mentioned, education, culture, tourism...  This explanation will allow you to have a more complete understanding of the contributions and importance of this work. Can the ARRA models be improved in any way?

 

 

 

- The conclusions highlight the fundamental aspects of this research. They are presented concisely, without overlooking the limitations of the study.

- The article provides clear references to citations and the text, following APA guidelines.

I am grateful to the authors and editors for the opportunity to review this manuscript.

 

Author Response

Comments 1: The discussion presents a good summary and diagnosis of the results obtained, but it can be improved by adding experiences, previous studies and research that reinforce the value of industrial heritage in the aspects mentioned, education, culture, tourism...  This explanation will allow you to have a more complete understanding of the contributions and importance of this work.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out and we agree with this comment. Therefore, we have added references to relevant cases and studies in Sections 4.1-4.4 of the revised draft, [55-61], as detailed on page 14-15, including aspects of industrial heritage reuse approaches to make the discussion section more informative and contributory. In addition, we have deleted repetitions in Sections 4.2-4.4 to make the discussion more concise and complete, as detailed on page 14-15。

 

Comments 2: Can the ARRA models be improved in any way?

Response 2: Thank you for your question, to which we answer yes. We have added an explanation of the generalization of the ARRA model in Section 4.5 to complete the elaboration of the model, “In addition, the ARRA model is universal and optimizable, and due to the differences in scale and industrial characteristics of different types of industrial heritage, researchers can further optimize the model to address these differences by adding or subtracting assessment indicators appropriately, e.g., in the dimension of sustainability of heritage preservation, to improve the assessment indicators of the inheritance of special industrial skills.”, as detailed on the last highlighted paragraph on page 15, line 6-11.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a highly engaging and interesting work. The study aims to develop an objective post-development assessment system for the Adaptive Reuse Results Assessment (ARRA) of industrial heritage. The authors base this framework on the principles of “Conservation Sustainability” and “Added Value Sustainability,” with a focus on industrial heritage in the Beijing area.

The study addresses an important and timely topic with a clear and well-defined focus, offering valuable insights into adaptive reuse practices. The introduction effectively establishes the context and demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of the field. The methodology is robust, providing clear explanations and making appropriate use of data to support the analysis.

The discussion section draws meaningful and well-aligned conclusions, addressing the study’s objectives thoroughly. The conclusions successfully highlight both the effectiveness of the ARRA framework and potential areas for improvement, offering a balanced perspective. Additionally, the figures and tables are well-presented, enhancing the overall clarity and accessibility of the findings. Overall this paper makes a significant contribution to field of adaptive reuse of industrial heritage.

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your recognition and assessment of our work!

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciated the review work done by the authors. They responded appropriately to the suggestions offered by the reviewers. There were implementations in the article that strengthen the scientific soundness of the article