Machine Learning-Based Design Systems for Holistic Landscape Integration of Traditional Settlements: Evolutionary Models Applied at Vikos Gorge

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Although the topic addressed in the manuscript is potentially compelling, the paper does not fulfill the expectations set forth in the abstract, which claims that the aim is to develop a design system capable of adapting to various disciplinary contexts and anticipating changes based on input data.

The proposed design system remains underdeveloped and lacks the methodological clarity and depth required for scholarly contribution. It is presented in a highly conceptual and preliminary form. Additionally, although the manuscript references a few relevant sources (such as Wolfram), the literature review is inadequate and should be significantly expanded to include a broader and more critical examination of existing research on the intersection of emerging technologies and design methodologies.

Crucially, the manuscript does not present a concrete or tested methodology (only a brief outline of it), which makes it impossible to conduct a meaningful discussion of results. The figures included are of general and illustrative character and are not directly tied to the research question, which itself is only loosely defined. As such, the overall tone and structure of the manuscript resemble a project proposal rather than a scientific paper.

The overall academic merit of the manuscript is quite low in its current form. In order to address these shortcomings, a clear and replicable methodology should be articulated, tested through the case study presented, and ideally compared to existing approaches. However, the extent of revision required to achieve this would go far beyond what is typically considered a major revision. A fundamental reworking of the manuscript is necessary for it to be considered for publication.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comments 1: Although the topic addressed in the manuscript is potentially compelling, the paper does not fulfill the expectations set forth in the abstract, which claims that the aim is to develop a design system capable of adapting to various disciplinary contexts and anticipating changes based on input data.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. The changed that have been made, potential fulfill the aim of the study. 

Comments 2: The proposed design system remains underdeveloped and lacks the methodological clarity and depth required for scholarly contribution. It is presented in a highly conceptual and preliminary form. Additionally, although the manuscript references a few relevant sources (such as Wolfram), the literature review is inadequate and should be significantly expanded to include a broader and more critical examination of existing research on the intersection of emerging technologies and design methodologies.

Response 2: We agree that the proposed system is not adequately presented as it is in a more conceptual form. However, in the revised manuscprit we have developed and analysed part of the main system. Furthermore, we have incorporeted a broader engagement with contemporary research. 

Comments 3: Crucially, the manuscript does not present a concrete or tested methodology (only a brief outline of it), which makes it impossible to conduct a meaningful discussion of results. The figures included are of general and illustrative character and are not directly tied to the research question, which itself is only loosely defined. As such, the overall tone and structure of the manuscript resemble a project proposal rather than a scientific paper.

Response 3: We understand the reviewer's concern about the methodology of the manuscprit an so in the revised form there is a more extended one. 

Comments 4: The overall academic merit of the manuscript is quite low in its current form. In order to address these shortcomings, a clear and replicable methodology should be articulated, tested through the case study presented, and ideally compared to existing approaches. However, the extent of revision required to achieve this would go far beyond what is typically considered a major revision. A fundamental reworking of the manuscript is necessary for it to be considered for publication.

Response 4: We acknowledge the extent of revision required and in the new manuscript we attempted to resolve any of these issues.  We hope these substantial revisions meet the standards expected for publication.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors may need to change the title of the manuscript as they did not demonstrate the impacts of the application of the model.

The paper should be improved by:

a) Developing the literature review showing the evolution of these tools in Architecture and Urban-Design, and from the methodological point of view we may understand the selected tools. As we may present briefly through the SWOT, the chronological development of these tools and their impacts on the touristic activities in similar context.

b) The authors should improve by developing more references.

c) In the manuscript, there is no demonstration of the use of the proposed tools on the selected regions, it is mainly as a description of the process without showing the application of the tools and the evaluation of the adequate scenario.

d) The results and the conclusion deserve to be detailed by highlighting the difference between the traditional methods and the use of these proposed tools. 

Author Response

Comment 1: The authors may need to change the title of the manuscript as they did not demonstrate the impacts of the application of the model.

Response 1: The Title of the manuscript has been modified to fulfill the requirements and reflect the context of the study (Machine Learning-Based Design Systems for Holistic Landscape Integration of Traditional Settlements: Evolutionary Models Applied at Vikos Gorge).

Comment 2: a) Developing the literature review showing the evolution of these tools in Architecture and Urban-Design, and from the methodological point of view we may understand the selected tools. As we may present briefly through the SWOT, the chronological development of these tools and their impacts on the touristic activities in similar context.

Response 2: The literature review developed sufficiently to introduce the development of the computational tools in Architecture and Urban Design. In addition, a SWOT analysis has been added, including the impact of these tools on the tourist activities. (387-400 lines)

Comment 3: b) The authors should improve by develop ing more references 

Response 3: We have expanded the references in order to build up the theoritical background and the methodology of the study.

Comment 4: c) In the manuscript, there is no demonstration of the use of the proposed tools on the selected regions, it is mainly as a description of the process without showing the application of the tools and the evaluation of the adequate scenario

Response 4: Thank you for pointing out the lack in the demonstration of the system. This is a consequence of the model's preliminary stage of development that is in a non-presentational form. However, in the new manuscript there is a detailed description of a core subsytem, as well as the potential outcomes from its implementation. 

Comment 5: d) The results and the conclusion deserve to be detailed by highlighting the difference between the traditional methods and the use of these proposed tools

Response 5: We agree with the reviewer to extend the results and conclusion section, and this is why we have emphasize in the districtions between traditional methods and the proposed computational tools. 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revisions in the manuscript have not been indicated through color highlights or other forms of markup, which makes it difficult to identify the specific changes without conducting a direct comparison with the previous version. At present, the manuscript resembles more a project report than a scholarly article. This impression largely stems from the insufficient presentation of results and the still limited scope of the Results and Discussion sections.

The manuscript would benefit from a more developed discussion of its limitations, a comparison with alternative methods (where applicable, and this seems feasible), as well as an exploration of potential new applications, particularly given that both machine learning and Grasshopper are already widely employed in the field.

In addition, the figures included remain largely general and illustrative in nature, rather than being explicitly connected to the research outcomes.

Author Response

Comments 1: The revisions in the manuscript have not been indicated through color highlights or other forms of markup, which makes it difficult to identify the specific changes without conducting a direct comparison with the previous version. At present, the manuscript resembles more a project report than a scholarly article. This impression largely stems from the insufficient presentation of results and the still limited scope of the Results and Discussion sections.

Response 1: Thank you for your constructive feedback and we apologize for not having marked the changes in the text. We believe that highlighting causes some confusion when reading the paper, so it has been avoided. To help track the changes in the revised manuscript, we address the added Lines [45-51], [320-327], [391-403], [425-427], [432-434], [467-479], [486-487].

Comments 2: The manuscript would benefit from a more developed discussion of its limitations, a comparison with alternative methods (where applicable, and this seems feasible), as well as an exploration of potential new applications, particularly given that both machine learning and Grasshopper are already widely employed in the field.

Response 2: e have expanded the Discussion to address limitations more explicitly and included a comparison with alternative approaches. Importantly, we clarified that our methodology functions as a way of learning about the system itself, drawing parallels with the principles of machine learning (ML). Line [467-479]. 

Comments 3: In addition, the figures included remain largely general and illustrative in nature, rather than being explicitly connected to the research outcomes.

Response 3: We appreciate this observation. Upon careful consideration, we believe that the figures already serve to illustrate the research outcomes in a way that is consistent with the methodological and case study framework of the manuscript.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

There is an improvement in the development of the manuscript. However, from the methodology adopted and the discussions need more development. For the methodology, the aim of the authors is the development of a method of learning, so they should demonstrate the validity of the proposed system and then its implementation. The presentation of the manuscript is done in the opposite way.

The discussion should be reviewed by highlighting the use of such tool, its limits and the ways of its improvement.

Some comments made in the previous evaluation (mainly the second part of the comment 2) need to be reviewed.

Author Response

Comments 1: There is an improvement in the development of the manuscript. However, from the methodology adopted and the discussions need more development. For the methodology, the aim of the authors is the development of a method of learning, so they should demonstrate the validity of the proposed system and then its implementation. The presentation of the manuscript is done in the opposite way.

Response 1: Thank you for this valuable observation. We have added further points to enhance the explanation of the methodology. However, we would like to emphasize that the key aspect of this research is that the methodology itself emerged from the analysis of the settlements. In this sense, it represents a context-driven learning process. The method was devised specifically as a response to the Vikos Gorge case study, rather than being a predefined, generic system applied afterward.  The changes in the manuscript are in Lines [45-51], [320-327], [391-403], [425-427], [432-434], [467-479], [486-487].

Comments 2: The discussion should be reviewed by highlighting the use of such tool, its limits and the ways of its improvement.

Response 2: We revised the discussion to better highlight the use of the tool, its limits, and potential ways for improvement and extension. [Line 467-479]

Comments 3: Some comments made in the previous evaluation (mainly the second part of the comment 2) need to be reviewed.

Response 3: We revisited the second part of Comment 2 from the earlier review round and incorporated the necessary clarifications. In line 416-429 there is a brief SWOT analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) to situate the tool in relation to others and also an explicit mention of tourism-related applications in similar contexts (to align with your paper’s theme).