A Methodological Approach to the Restoration of a Rural Street Using Affordable Digital Technologies
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis study compares three methods of detailed modeling for rural streets, which may provide some reference value for research in related fields. However, the study has obvious shortcomings in terms of innovation and empirical evidence, as follows:
1. Numerous similar studies have already been conducted in the field of photogrammetry on this topic, and the study fails to clearly identify new research gaps.
2. The “TLS + UAV + CRP” hybrid strategy has been validated multiple times in scenarios such as urban 3D reconstruction, architectural heritage inspection, and infrastructure patrols. This paper fails to propose any new technical breakthroughs.
3. Although the study demonstrates models of rural streets constructed using different methods, it remains at the data comparison level, with virtually no discussion on how to utilize these models for design decision-making.
4. The study is conducted on a single rural street, lacking comparative validation across different street types, making it difficult to demonstrate differences in applicability among the three methods.
5. Hardware and software updates are extremely frequent and vary by region. Therefore, the labor and equipment costs calculated in this study lack representativeness.
6. The paper does not present any comparisons of rural street renewals based on the three types of data, making it impossible to explain how “higher precision” or “more texture” translates into better design.
7. The paper does not provide any quantitative analysis of the impact of the three methods on design decisions, making it difficult to assess the practical value of the research.
Author Response
We sincerely thank you for the time and attention dedicated to reviewing our manuscript. We greatly appreciate your insightful comments and suggestions, which have significantly contributed to improving its scientific value.
All revisions and amendments made in response to the reviewers’ feedback are incorporated into the revised manuscript. These changes are highlighted in red and referenced by line numbers in our detailed responses.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis manuscript compares three spatial data acquisition methods: Terrestrial Laser Scanning (TLS), Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) photogrammetry and smartphone Close-Range Photogrammetry (CRP) on a linear feature, in terms of accuracy, cost, and time.
The main question is clear, and the conclusions are consistent with the results obtained. However, to cope with the question presented, the methodology strategy should be described, i.e. a methodology section is missing and should be added after section 1.
Since the content of subsection 4.4 addresses general 3D modeling issues as a literature review, please consider removing it or relocating it to section 1.
While the topic is relevant and timely, the comparison performed isn´t original and doesn’t increase significant knowledge.
Minor improvements:
- Title: Please review it. The manuscript addresses a comparison between three spatial data acquisition methods, and the methodological approach is missing
- Keywords: Please consider replace the current keywords with “landscaping; linear feature; low cost; terrestrial laser scanning (TLS); Unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) photogrammetry; smartphone close-range photogrammetry (CRP)
- Figure 1: Please improve the quality of down right figure
- Line 247: Please replace “𝑎𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑑𝑎𝑦∗ 𝑎𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑑𝑎𝑦𝑠” with “Total cost = average diary cost x average number of days”
- Lines 345-346 and Table 2: Please use both values, with or without VAT included, to facilitate comparability
- Line 356: Section 3.5 is missing. Please fix it
Although I’m not an English expert, it seems to me suitable submit the paper to an English native reviewer.
Author Response
We sincerely thank you for the time and attention dedicated to reviewing our manuscript. We greatly appreciate your insightful comments and suggestions, which have significantly contributed to improving its scientific value.
All revisions and amendments made in response to the reviewers’ feedback are incorporated into the revised manuscript. These changes are highlighted in red and referenced by line numbers in our detailed responses
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPresented research is of great interest for all professions involved in a process of urban planning and architectural design. This study is particularly compelling due to the potential for broad application of its findings. Field of using relatively modest techniques in a sense of cost effectiveness is very interesting for a potential reader due to its applicability around vast number of situations.
In this study, spatial data were acquired using laser scanning and photogrammetry, applied through both static and dynamic capture methods. Techniques used are classified as cost-effective alternatives to professional-grade equipment and they are:Terrestrial Laser Scanning (TLS), Aerial Photogrammetry, Close-Range Photogrammetry (CRP).
Terrestrial Laser Scanning (TLS) was employed as the reference method for evaluating the accuracy of more accessible techniques, such as close-range and aerial photogrammetry using widely available devices like smartphones and drones. The methods were assessed in terms of required expertise, time investment, financial cost, and output accuracy, with particular attention to their applicability within landscape architecture.
However, the Methodology section would benefit from a more detailed justification of the selection criteria for the technologies employed. Additionally, the inclusion of a schematic diagram illustrating the overall methodological workflow could significantly enhance clarity and coherence, helping to better integrate the individual subsections and strengthen the internal logic of the chapter.
The Discussion section would benefit from the inclusion of a comparative table to synthesize and visually organize key findings across the different methods and criteria evaluated. Such a table would enhance the clarity of the argumentation, facilitate cross-method comparison, and support a more accessible interpretation of results.
Additionally, certain figures (Figure 4 and Figure 7) would benefit from improved graphical clarity to better communicate the data presented. Enhancing visual elements in this way would significantly improve the manuscript’s overall readability and analytical coherence.
Finally, I particularly appreciate the section addressing Applicability in Urban Planning and Design, as well as the authors’ recognition of digital twin methodology as a critical and forward-looking framework.
Author Response
We sincerely thank you for the time and attention dedicated to reviewing our manuscript. We greatly appreciate your insightful comments and suggestions, which have significantly contributed to improving its scientific value.
All revisions and amendments made in response to the reviewers’ feedback are incorporated into the revised manuscript. These changes are highlighted in red and referenced by line numbers in our detailed responses
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you to the author for making every effort to revise the paper and for responding to each question one by one. The addition of 3.5 is necessary and useful. Despite the author's response to my questions, I still feel that this paper lacks innovation. Please consider the opinions of other reviewers to decide whether this paper should continue to be optimized.
Author Response
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Thank you to the author for making every effort to revise the paper and for responding to each question one by one. The addition of 3.5 is necessary and useful. Despite the author's response to my questions, I still feel that this paper lacks innovation. Please consider the opinions of other reviewers to decide whether this paper should continue to be optimized.
Response
Thank you for your feedback and thoughtful evaluation of our study. Much of the existing research on UAV and TLS technologies has focused on buildings, archaeological sites, or large-scale terrain models. This study adds value by addressing an underexplored area—linear landscape features in open spaces—and shows how low-cost methods can produce design-ready models that support the practical workflows of landscape architecture.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis new version of the manuscript was sufficiently improved. After fixing minor issues, it can be published.
Minor improvements:
- Keywords: Please consider add “smartphone close-range photogrammetry (CRP)” to the current keywords
- Figure 1: Please add north direction
- Figure 2: The legend should be “Overall methodological workflow.”
- Lines 164-171: Please consider relocating it at the beginning of subsection 2.2
- Line 172: Please replace “UAS” with “UAV”
Although I’m not an English expert, it seems to me suitable submit the paper to an English native reviewer.
Author Response
Thank you for your time and attention in reviewing the manuscript. We appreciate your comments and suggestions. All changes and amendments based on reviewers' comments are given in the revised manuscript, described in red and identified by the line number in responses
Minor improvements:
- Keywords: Please consider add “smartphone close-range photogrammetry
(CRP)” to the current keywords
Response: The comment has been accepted and the text has been updated accordingly (Lines 29–30).
- Figure 1: Please add north direction
Response: Comment accepted. In Figure 1, the north direction has been added to each part of the image.
- Figure 2: The legend should be “Overall methodological workflow.”
Response : Comment accepted. In Figure 2, the caption “Overall methodological workflow” has beenchanged.
- Lines 164-171: Please consider relocating it at the beginning of subsection 2.2
Response: Accepted; the text has been moved to the beginning of Section 2.2 (Lines 145–153).
- Line 172: Please replace “UAS” with “UAV”
Response: Accepted and replaced with "UAV" (Line 174).
- Although I’m not an English expert, it seems to me suitable submit the paper to an English native reviewer.
Response: As requested by the reviewer, the manuscript has been carefully edited for language and clarity.
