Cognitive and Structural Perspectives on a Traditional Terraced Rice Field Village: An Integrated Spatial Syntax Approach

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study presents an insightful research question, aiming to integrate Kevin Lynch's cognitive map theory with Bill Hillier's spatial syntax to explore the spatial characteristics of traditional terraced villages in Korea. The research topic holds significant academic value and practical implications, particularly in the fields of cultural heritage preservation and rural planning. However, there remain some critical issues regarding the argumentation of its core contributions, the transparency of its methodology, and the depth of its analysis.

1.The author mentions in the introduction that this study integrates the theories of Lynch and Hillier, but fails to clarify the specific innovations of this study. This study only applies existing approaches to a new case study.

2.The study sample consisted of 25 residents, accounting for one-quarter of the total population. Although the sample size is acceptable for qualitative research, the authors did not specify the sampling method. Sample bias may affect the representativeness of the ‘collective cognitive map.’

3.The author mentions combining individual cognitive maps into a ‘collective cognitive map’ (Figure 5), but the specific process is unknown. Please explain the method in detail.

4. The manuscript repeatedly mentions the ‘social and cultural meaning’ of space, but the process of extracting this ‘meaning’ from the data is not clear enough.

5.The manuscript mentions ‘The Rice Vurial Mound’ and ‘rice grave.’ It is recommended that the terminology be consistent throughout the text. Similarly, ‘Sangsuri trees’ and ‘village guardian tree’ should also be consistent.

6.Add a short paragraph to the conclusion section to discuss the limitations of this study and offer suggestions for future research.

 

Author Response

Please check the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article presents an original methodological study. In the authors' words, this is its main contribution, as it combines Lynch's theory and spatial synthesis theory. In my view, the two are complementary.
The introduction is rather confusing, especially in the section on research methods and content. In this section, the authors do not mention that interviews were conducted with the town's residents. Nor is it clear to me where the data for the statistical analysis was obtained. I believe the article would benefit greatly from a clearer explanation of the methods used.
The development of the work seems correct to me, but as a simple observation, the case study is not given importance as such; it simply seems like an attempt to apply the conceptual framework developed in any way possible.
The conclusions, therefore, respond to this attempt. So much so that the authors' explanation of the significance of the study is ‘the integrated methodology’. 
I can agree with this, but I understand that after the analysis, more topics on the case could be specified.
The bibliography is correct.
Finally, I believe that the authors should pay more attention to the layout of the work. The figures are incorrectly numbered (not just one). It should be a must that the figures are correctly numbered.

Author Response

Please check the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Abstract in Introduction section there is no term gap (research gap). We need to mention this matter in order to inform readers what is missing in research in general and how you are going to cover this gap with this research. Please act accordingly. If there is no research gap, then this research paper is not innovative and do not have any contribution to academy field. 

Inadequate methodology - The paper's two well-defined methodological foundations-cognitive mapping and space syntax-are used, but the analytical tools-such as software for spatial syntax, statistical software for correlation analysis, and precise procedures for processing cognitive maps—are not well described. It is essential to include: Which program was utilized to examine the axial graphs? What particular metrics-apart from integration, clarity, etc. were employed? How was the interview's dependability confirmed? 

Why there is no Literature Review section after Introduction? This section is necessary to have in order to have complete paper. 

Although there are several references to figures (such as Figure 1, Figure 3, and Figure 6), the figures are not consistently numbered, and the text does not provide a clear explanation of them. 

Every time the image is mentioned, the data that is shown must be analyzed and interpreted. A more thorough discussion is required. For instance, Figure 7 illustrates the visibility analysis, but the text does not clarify how it applies to cognitive perception.

The discussion is not critical enough. The authors' conclusions largely support well-established theories from the literature, such as the complimentary nature of cognitive and physical perceptions of space. However, the following is absent: critical distance from one's own outcomes. Limitations discussion: the findings' generalizability may be impacted by the small sample size of 25 respondents and their age distribution. The potential subjectivity of the interpretation of cognitive maps is not taken into account.

Conclusion part is recommended to have Limitation of this study as a subheading and Study recommendation.

Best regards

Author Response

Please check the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

A very interesting study. The author has solved all my concerns.